MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2832822146 · doi:10.1055/s-0038-1667051

Breaking Bad: An Assessment of Ophthalmologists' Interpersonal Skills and Training on Delivering Bad News

2018· article· en· W2832822146 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Academic Ophthalmology · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicPatient-Provider Communication in Healthcare
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersPerelman School of Medicine, University of PennsylvaniaNational Eye InstituteJames N. Kirby FoundationUniversity of PennsylvaniaResearch to Prevent BlindnessF. M. Kirby FoundationNational Institutes of HealthU.S. Department of Health and Human Services
KeywordsMedicineLikert scaleFamily medicineAccreditationPsychologyMedical education

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Purpose This article aims to assess ophthalmologists' practice patterns, experiences, and self-perceived skills when delivering bad news to patients and to compare this to patients' experience and preferences in receiving bad news from ophthalmologists. Design/Methods This is a prospective cross-sectional survey study of two populations: (1) Attending ophthalmologists and current ophthalmologists-in-training (N = 202) at accredited ophthalmology residency programs in the United States and Canada. (2) Patients (N = 151) 18 years of age and older at a single academic center who had received bad news from their ophthalmologist. An e-mail was sent to ophthalmology department chairs and resident program directors requesting that they distribute an online survey to their faculty, fellows, and residents. Patients were recruited from the clinics at an academic center and completed a self-administered survey before their scheduled appointments. Both populations were surveyed on their experience in breaking and receiving bad news, respectively. Questions were rated on a standard five-point Likert scale, and mean score was calculated for statistical comparison. The primary outcome variable was the quantitative rating (Likert scale 1–5) of physicians' communication skills when delivering bad news from physicians and patients' responses. Results Patients rated their physicians higher than physicians rated themselves with regard to ability to deliver bad news (mean score of 4.23 vs. 3.48, p < 0.01). Multivariate analysis showed frequent delivery of bad news (mean score of 3.66 for once per day, 3.53 for per week, 3.40 for once per month, and 3.22 for once per year, linear trend; p = 0.004) and years of practice were associated with better self-perceived ability to deliver bad news (mean score of 3.75 for ≥15 years, 3.48 for <15 years, and 3.30 for residents/fellows, linear trend; p < 0.001). Having received formal training in breaking bad news was associated with better perceived ability score, yet not statistically significant (3.51 vs. 3.39, p = 0.31). Most patients (97.5%) and physicians (92.1%) believe delivering bad news can be taught. Conclusion Physicians and patients agree that skills of delivering bad news can be learned. Patients are less critical of their physicians' ability to deliver bad news than physicians are themselves. Further study of best methods to deliver bad news is clearly indicated for the field of ophthalmology.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesResearch integrity
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.013
Threshold uncertainty score0.998

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.226
GPT teacher head0.516
Teacher spread0.290 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it