Being a Surgeon—The Myth and the Reality
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In Brief Objectives: Synthesize the findings from individual qualitative studies about surgeons' account of their practice. Background: Social and contextual factors of practice influence doctors' well-being and therapeutic relationships. Little is known about surgery, but it is generally assumed that surgeons are not affected by them. Methods: We searched international publications (2000–2012) to identify relevant qualitative research exploring how surgeons talk about their practice. Meta-ethnography (a systematic analysis of qualitative literature that compensates for the potential lack of generalizability of the primary studies and provides new insight by their conjoint interpretation) was used to identify key themes and synthesize them. Results: We identified 51 articles (>1000 surgeons) from different specialties and countries. Two main themes emerged. (i) The patient-surgeon relationship, described surgeons' characterizations of their relationships with patients. We identified factors influencing surgical decision making, communication, and personal involvement in the process of care; these were surgeon-related, patient-related, and contextual. (ii) Group relations and culture described perceived issues related to surgical culture (image and education, teamwork, rules, and guidelines); it highlighted the influence of a social dimension on surgical practice. In both themes, we uncovered an emotional dimension of surgeons' practice. Conclusions: Surgeons' emphasis on technical aspects, individuality, and performance seems to impede a modern patient-centered approach to care and to act as a barrier to well-being. Our findings suggest that taking into account the relational and emotional dimensions of surgical practice (both with patients and within the institution) might improve surgical innovation, surgeons' well-being, and the attractiveness of this specialty. Social and contextual factors of practice influence surgeons' well-being and therapeutic relationships. This systematic review of surgeons' perspectives about their practice shows that the relational and emotional dimensions are prevalent in surgical practice and have implications in terms of surgeons' well-being and position, scientific evaluation of surgical innovation, and attractiveness of this specialty.
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 | 0.003 | 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 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".