A novel source of patients' and families' written words to identify what they value in the doctor-patient encounter
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Context: The value and desirability of a positive doctor-patient relationship has traditionally been described using case histories and narratives, and less often with formal literature, art, movies, and theatre. To the detriment of this relationship some family physicians are facing pressure to engage in volume medicine, at the possible expense of personalized care. What patients appreciate in their care is at risk of being ignored. Objective: To understand what adult patients value in the clinical encounters with their family physicians. Design: In this research, still in progress, we have adopted an interpretive hermeneutics approach to examine a collection of over 140 cards and letters received by an academic family doctor in practice for 39 years. Participants: The patients or their family members who sent the aforementioned notes. Findings: Preliminary analysis suggests that correspondence is not spontaneous, but initiated at holidays (Christmas, New Years, Chanukah); life cycle events (birth, recovery from illness, death); and transitions (leaving the practice because of geographical re-location). Notes are commonly personalized through hand-written text written on behalf of oneself and/or ones family. Showing a wide variety of word selection they expresses appreciation for family physician care of oneself or a family member that was perceived as knowledgeable bio-medically, and experienced as available, authentic, supportive, professional, compassionate, offering hope, and sensitive to suffering. Conclusions: The writing of notes to ones doctors may serve many functions: catharsis, closure, and bearing witness to patients’ appreciation of care in which Hippocratic and Asclepian traditions overlap and complement each other.
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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".