Preference to Patient-Centeredness in Undergraduate Audiology Students in Portugal
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: In health care, the model of patient-centered care is growing; and improved outcomes have been linked to patient-centeredness. Practicing audiologists have been found to strongly prefer a patient-centered approach as years in practice increase. It is unknown whether patient-centeredness begins during education and training. PURPOSE: The current study was aimed at understanding the preference to patient-centeredness in undergraduate audiology students in Portugal. RESEARCH DESIGN: The study used a cross-sectional survey design. STUDY SAMPLE: One hundred and thirty-seven undergraduate audiology students completed patient-practitioner orientation scale (PPOS) and provided some demographic details. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: The data were analyzed using one-way analysis of variance and one-sample t tests. RESULTS: A significant difference was found for sharing subscale (p ≤ 0.001), caring subscale (p = 0.033), and the PPOS full scale (p ≤ 0.001) among different undergraduate groups. Further, post hoc tests showed that the difference between year 1 and with years 2, 3, and 4 were significant for sharing subscale and PPOS full scale, but not for caring subscale. No significant differences were observed among the years 2, 3, and 4 for sharing subscale, caring subscale, and for PPOS full scale. When compared audiologists' preferences from a previous study on audiologists with students' preferences in the current study, significant difference for both subscales and full scale was found between year 1 students and audiologists (p ≤ 0.001), with higher preference to patient-centeredness was reported by qualified audiologists. Also, significant difference was found between audiologists and overall undergraduate group for caring subscale (p = 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: The current study suggests that audiology education influences preference to patient-centeredness. Within a year of undergraduate coursework, students tend to develop high preference to patient-centeredness, which stays stable during four years of undergraduate studies. These results provide useful insights to audiology education and training, particularly in the context of audiological rehabilitation.
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 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".