Patients’ fear of physicians and perceptions of physicians’ cultural competence in healthcare
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Fear of physicians is associated with a variety of negative relationship and clinical outcomes. Culturally competent communication has been suggested as a way for physicians to reduce patient fear. Previous research has not, however, assessed whether patients’ perceptions of physicians’ cultural competence are associated with the level of felt fear. This study assessed associations between patients’ fear of physicians and their perceptions of physicians’ cultural competence in healthcare interactions.Method: In this cross-sectional study, a purposive sample of 306 patients were recruited from the patient base of a local clinic system with three locations, one rural, one suburban, and one urban in Appalachian Ohio. Using validated paper-and-pencil questionnaires, we assessed patients’ perceptions of physicians’ cultural competence in four domains (macro cultural issues, proxemics/chronemics, language issues, and patient-centeredness) as well as fear of physicians.Results: Fear of physicians was associated with perceptions that physicians’ accommodated cultural differences related to issues of personal space and time and with perceptions of physicians’ provision of patient-centered care. Other domains of intercultural competence indicated negative association, but were not significant.Conclusions: The findings of this study provide evidence that some forms of physician accommodation of cultural difference are associated with reduced fear of physicians. These findings have implications for promoting physicians' cultural competence in healthcare interactions. These implications, with a focus on patient-physician communication are discussed.
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 | 0.002 | 0.015 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".