‘Can the patient speak?’: postcolonialism and patient involvement in undergraduate and postgraduate medical education
Bibliographic record
Abstract
CONTEXT: Patients are increasingly being engaged in providing feedback and consultation to health care institutions, and in the training of health care professionals. Such involvement has the potential to disrupt traditional doctor-patient power dynamics in significant ways that have not been theorised in the medical literature. Critical theories can help us understand how power flows when patients are engaged in the training of medical students. METHODS: This paper applies postcolonial theory to the involvement of patients in the development and delivery of medical education. First, I review and summarise the literature around patient involvement in medical education. Subsequently, I highlight how postcolonial frameworks have been applied to medical education more broadly, extrapolating from the literature to apply a postcolonial lens to the area of patient engagement in medical education. CONCLUSION: Concepts from postcolonial theory can help medical educators think differently about how patients can be engaged in the medical education project in ways that are meaningful and non-tokenistic. Specifically, the positioning of the patient as 'subaltern' can provide channels of resistance against traditional power asymmetries. This has curricular and methodological implications for medical education research in the area of patient engagement.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 teacher head, 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".