Eliciting Personhood Within Clinical Practice: Effects on Patients, Families, and Health Care Providers
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
CONTEXT: Failure to acknowledge personhood is often the cause of patient and family dissatisfaction. We developed the Patient Dignity Question (PDQ) as a simple means of inquiring about personhood: "What do I need to know about you as a person to give you the best care possible?" OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to evaluate the impact of the PDQ on patients and families, evaluate its influence on health care providers (HCPs), and determine if HCP characteristics mediate receptivity to PDQ-elicited information. METHODS: Palliative care patients or their family members were asked to respond to the PDQ. Responses were summarized, read to participants to ensure accuracy, and with permission, placed in their charts. Patient, family, and HCP responses to the PDQ were then elicited. RESULTS: A total of 126 participants (66 patients and 60 family members) responded to the PDQ; 99% indicated that the summaries were accurate, 97% permitted the summary to be placed in the chart, 93% felt that the information was important for HCPs to know, and 99% would recommend the PDQ for others. A total of 137 HCPs completed 293 evaluations of individual PDQs; 90% indicated that they learned something new from it, 64% that they were emotionally affected by it, 59% that it influenced their sense of empathy, and 44% that it influenced their care. HCP empathy, job satisfaction, having a meaningful life, and social support mediated responsiveness to PDQ-elicited information. CONCLUSION: The PDQ offers an effective way of eliciting personhood, enhancing patient, family, and HCP experience alike.
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 | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| 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