Patient-centred primary care of adults with severe and profound intellectual and developmental disabilities: Patient-caregiver-physician relationship.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To explore the process of the development of the patient-physician relationship in adult patients with severe or profound intellectual and developmental disabilities (IDD), from the perspective of the patients' caregivers. DESIGN: Constructivist grounded theory. SETTING: St John's, NL. PARTICIPANTS: Thirteen primary caregivers (5 males, 8 females) of 1 or more adults with severe or profound IDD. METHODS: Data were collected via in-depth, semistructured interviews conducted in person or by telephone. Interviews were audiorecorded and transcribed verbatim. Field notes were documented immediately by the interviewer and discussed with the research team. Memos in the form of reflective notes served as additional sources of data. MAIN FINDINGS: From the perspective of the caregivers, the core process in the development of the patient-physician relationship was protection. This process began as a result of the caregiver's recognition of the patient's vulnerability and moved through a number of stages before resulting in the development of a dynamic triangular interaction between the patient, caregiver, and family physician. First, the caregiver provides extreme nurturing to the patient, which results in the development of a strong bond between them. The patient and caregiver approached the family physician together as one unit, and then decided together on whether or not to open the patient-caregiver bond to the physician. The resultant dynamic triangular interaction formed the starting point from which 1 of 4 different relationship-development trajectories began. Which trajectory was taken and, therefore, the character of the relationships that developed was determined by how the caregiver and patient experienced their interaction with the family physician. CONCLUSION: Findings highlight the process of protection and the centrality of the patient-caregiver bond within the development of a triadic relationship involving the patient with IDD, the caregiver, and the family physician. How a physician approaches this bond can influence the trajectory of the resulting relationship.
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 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".