Listening to native patients. Changes in physicians' understanding and behaviour.
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To discover how physicians develop an understanding of Native patients and communities that enables them to communicate better with these patients. DESIGN: Qualitative method of in-depth interviews. SETTING: Native communities across Canada. PARTICIPANTS: Ten non-Native physicians providing primary care to Native patients and communities. METHOD: In-depth, semistructured interviews explored communication strategies developed by primary care physicians working with Native patients. The audiotaped and transcribed interviews were analyzed by the investigators using the phenomenologic approach of immersion and crystallization. MAIN FINDINGS: Three main themes emerged. First was elements of communication: during patient-physician communication, physicians speak less, take more time with patients, and become comfortable with silence. Second was community context: patients' illnesses are not distinct from their community context; patient care and community relations, culture, and values are often inseparable. Third was the process of change in physicians: over time, participants increased understanding of Native culture, ways of communicating, and behaviour. Change comes about through long service, listening well, and participating in community events. CONCLUSION: Developing cross-cultural communication was difficult and took years, if not forever. Understanding Native communities changed physicians. They described a journey of self-examination, development of personal relationships, and rewards and frustrations.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it