Changing physicians' attitudes toward self-help groups: an educational intervention.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Members of self-help groups (SHGs) for support of cancer patients are concerned that physicians are skeptical about these groups and see them as potentially harmful. The purpose of this study was to assess family physicians' attitudes towards self-help groups and see whether these could be changed through an educational intervention. METHODS: A questionnaire assessing attitudes toward SHGs was mailed to 1,422 eligible Ontario family physicians, to which 911 responded (64% response rate). Responders were sent an educational package consisting of an article about self-help groups, a list of local cancer self-help groups, and a follow-up questionnaire. RESULTS: The study was completed by 584/911 family physicians (64%). After being exposed to educational material, the physicians were more positive about the helpfulness of SHGs (p = 0.021), and less concerned about SHGs' being harmful (p = 0.003). They were more positive about the potential for SHGs to provide participants with opportunities for: sharing information (p = 0.004), bonding with other patients (p < 0.001), feeling understood (p = 0.004), sharing common experiences (p = 0.004), providing hope (p < 0.001), sharing laughter (p = 0.001), becoming more assertive (p < 0.001), communicating with health professionals (p = 0.04), dealing with issues related to death and dying (p = 0.005), advocacy (p = 0.01), and overcoming isolation (p = 0.002). They were less concerned with the potential for SHGs to provide misinformation (p = 0.003), the negative effects of associating with the very ill (p = 0.002), dwelling on illness (p = 0.002), or cultivating false hope (p = 0.001). CONCLUSION: Having family physicians complete a questionnaire, followed by educational material specific to their concerns, changed their attitudes toward self-help groups. Further study is needed to see whether behavioral changes resulted.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".