The “Handling” of power in the physician-patient encounter: perceptions from experienced physicians
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Modern healthcare is burgeoning with patient centered rhetoric where physicians "share power" equally in their interactions with patients. However, how physicians actually conceptualize and manage their power when interacting with patients remains unexamined in the literature. This study explored how power is perceived and exerted in the physician-patient encounter from the perspective of experienced physicians. It is necessary to examine physicians' awareness of power in the context of modern healthcare that espouses values of dialogic, egalitarian, patient centered care. METHODS: Thirty physicians with a minimum five years' experience practicing medicine in the disciplines of Internal Medicine, Surgery, Pediatrics, Psychiatry and Family Medicine were recruited. The authors analyzed semi-structured interview data using LeCompte and Schensul's three stage process: Item analysis, Pattern analysis, and Structural analysis. Theoretical notions from Bourdieu's social theory served as analytic tools for achieving an understanding of physicians' perceptions of power in their interactions with patients. RESULTS: The analysis of data highlighted a range of descriptions and interpretations of relational power. Physicians' responses fell under three broad categories: (1) Perceptions of holding and managing power, (2) Perceptions of power as waning, and (3) Perceptions of power as non-existent or irrelevant. CONCLUSIONS: Although the "sharing of power" is an overarching goal of modern patient-centered healthcare, this study highlights how this concept does not fully capture the complex ways experienced physicians perceive, invoke, and redress power in the clinical encounter. Based on the insights, the authors suggest that physicians learn to enact ethical patient-centered therapeutic communication through reflective, effective, and professional use of power in clinical encounters.
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 | 0.007 | 0.031 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".