MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

What can physicians do to promote patient involvement in decision making (DM) in the oncology consultation?

2007· article· en· W2533275266 on OpenAlexaff
Peter Ellis, S. Dimitry, Cécile Charles, M. O’Brien, Timothy J. Whelan

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Oncology · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicPatient-Provider Communication in Healthcare
Canadian institutionsMcMaster UniversityJuravinski Cancer Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineCoding (social sciences)EmpathyFocus groupPatient satisfactionFamily medicineQualitative researchNursingPsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

19553 Background: Facilitating patient involvement in TDM is a desirable feature of the oncology consultation. Greater patient involvement in TDM may lead to improved patient satisfaction, compliance and reduced psychological morbidity. However, there is little empiric evidence defining physician behaviors and attributes that facilitate patient involvement in TDM. This study used qualitative methods to identify such behaviors and attributes suggested by both practicing oncologists and patients. Methods: Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 11 medical, 10 radiation oncologists and 19 patients with breast, lung, GI, or GU cancer to determine physician behaviors and attributes that facilitate patient involvement in TDM. Interviews were audiotaped and transcribed verbatim, then analyzed independently by two researchers using inductively derived coding categories and predetermined coding rules. Behaviors and attributes were identified and coded into common themes. Six focus groups with an additional 37 patients were conducted to review these behaviors and attributes. Results: A total of 231 individual physician behaviors and attributes were identified by physicians (179) and patients (52) that facilitate patient involvement in DM. Common behaviors and attributes identified from the interviews include: assessing patient’s understanding and preferences, providing information, explaining the DM process, providing information on treatment options, allowing time to consider treatment options, checking patient understanding of options and inviting patient input into decisions. Other behaviors such as physicians’ communication skills were reported as facilitating TDM. Specific physician personality attributes, such as empathy, were identified as important facilitators. Conclusions: Physicians and patients identify a large number of physician behaviors and attributes that may facilitate patient involvement in TDM. These include both behaviors that are important in general physician-patient communication, as well as those that are specifically related to the decision making process. Further research is ongoing to determine the importance of these factors and approaches to encourage their use in the oncology consultation. No significant financial relationships to disclose.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.010
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.050
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.051

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0100.050
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0030.002
Scholarly communication0.0030.003
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0030.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.401
GPT teacher head0.601
Teacher spread0.200 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Clinical Oncology→Same topicPatient-Provider Communication in Healthcare→French-language works237,207→