Exploring the Relational Aspects of Patient and Doctor Communication
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The alliance concept is an essential component of therapeutic relationships. Contrary to empirical evidence, its relevance is often not acknowledged in medical encounters. This circumstance invites the question, ‘‘How can the doctor and patient connect relationally with each other to improve the communication process and promote healing?’’ We propose that healing can be accomplished through dialog that emphasizes the collaborative nature of the partnership between the doctor and patient. The typical conversation in a medical encounter may be reduced to an information exchange and a medium for prescribing directives. This being-with approach can override patients’ involvement in the process. A positive doctor–patient relationship may be one of the most important, and most frequently overlooked, factors for predicting patient response to negative medical information. Receiving such news is potentially upsetting for the patient and may require the doctor to let go of the conversational medical agenda and adopt a being-for mode of relationship. We propose that this approach invites the doctor and patient to work together and negotiate how to manage the chronic illness eliciting patient-preferred treatment options. The authors propose the adoption of the being-for relationship as a way of enhancing the therapeutic potential of the doctor–patient relationship.
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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
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 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".