The therapeutic space and doctor–parent relationship in paediatrics: trainees’ experiences and perspectives
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIM: To explore paediatric trainees' experiences and perspectives regarding interactions and relationships between physicians and patients' parents. METHODS: Email survey was sent to AAP Section of Pediatric Trainees members. Trainees were asked about 40 interactions with parents as well as perceived benefits/risks and potential influences. Analysis of associations between variables and perspectives/experiences used chi-square and Fisher exact. RESULTS: Three hundred and seventy surveys were completed. Respondents participated in a median of nine interactions (IQR 7-13; range 0-37): 99.7% participated in at least one; 52% in 5-10; 41% in >10. 50% reported refusing to participate in at least one interaction following parental request; 8% refused 5-10; 1% refused >10. Electronic communication/social media domain had highest refusals and most interactions respondents believed should never be allowed. 94% agreed that interactions may be beneficial to providers: 75% identified at least one benefit; 86% one risk. Respondents who are parents or female reported increased interactions. CONCLUSION: A variety of interactions with patient's parents are common amongst paediatric trainees, who identify risks and benefits. Disagreements relative to acceptability of certain interactions points to the need for additional research. A reflective educational approach, rather than a prescriptive one, may help trainees better manage these relationships.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".