Poor concordance between reason for consultation and parental expectations in behavioral referrals
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract BACKGROUND Behavioural conditions such as Attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) are present in up to 5% of children across the world. This is a common reason for referral from primary care to paediatricians. When a primary care provider refers a patient to a specialist, they often create a set of expectations in the patient. These expectations may have a strong effect on the patient relationship with the specialist. It has been shown that parental expectations can influence prescribing practices in paediatrics. Low socioeconomic status, a risk factor for behavioural conditions is also a risk factor for poor physician-patient communication. If patient expectations set up in primary care are not reflected in the referral question sent to the paediatrician, this may hinder paediatrician-patient communication and impact care. OBJECTIVES The primary objective of this project was to determine the level of concordance between physician referrals and parent expectations in the consultant paediatrician’s office. A secondary objective was to examine demographic and socio-economic trends within this population. DESIGN/METHODS A clinic nurse conducted almost 500 pre-appointment intake interviews of guardians in children with a referral related to a behavioural concern and asked them their expectations for the consultation. The referral question and parental expectations were categorized by question of behavioural diagnosis, learning difficulties, medical complaint or unknown. Chi sqaured analysis was performed to measure concordance. RESULTS Among this population, 70.4% were male, with 54% coming from single parent families. Chi-square analysis indicated a small-moderate level of concordance on issues relating to attention, behaviour and academics, (59.9%, p<0.001; 57.3%, p<0.001; 62.6%, p=0.001), and high concordance but low correlation for social and medical issues (80.1%, p=0.002, 91.6%, p=0.06). CONCLUSION This study demonstrates how we could improve our patient-centered approach by being clear in what is being offered by paediatric consultation. When primary care providers consult paediatrics for behavior referrals there should be clear commnication of the concern at hand and management of the expectations for the visit with the family. This will improve efficiency and lessen dealys or barriers to access to care allowing approriate triage of referrals and patient satisfaction.
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 | 0.009 | 0.046 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".