Study of Acceptance and Application of Calgary Cambridge Communication Guideline for Doctor-Patient Communication in Primary Health Care
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACTBackground: Communication is a basic skill that must be acquired by every doctor just like all other clinical skills. One of communication guidelines for doctor-patient that is the most widely used in many countries is the Calgary-Cambridge Communication Guideline (CCCG). However, since CCCG is based on the Western style of communications, a further study is necessary to determine whether CCCG is acceptable and applicable in Indonesia.Methods: This research was an analytic descriptive study with a cross-sectional design. The research was conducted from December 2016 until January 2017 in Yogyakarta with 58 primary care doctors. The data was collected using the CCCG-based questionnaire method with a cross-cultural adaptation.Results: The CCCG is well accepted although its application is not optimum. The acceptance rate was 4.03 (indicating highly acceptable), while the application rate was 3.74 (indicating occasionally implemented). There was a significant difference between the acceptance and application rates (p<0.01). There were no significant differences between the acceptance rates of Puskesmas (Community and Primary Health Care Center) and non-Puskesmas (p = 0.115) facilities while the application was significantly different (p = 0.001). The application levels of the Puskesmas were lower than those in non-Puskesmas. Additionally, there was no difference in the acceptance or application of CCCG for doctors who have and who have not attended communication training.Conclusion: There was no difference in the acceptance of CCCG, but there was a difference in its application. The application rate at Puskesmas was lower than non-Puskesmas facilities. The experience in communication training did not affect the acceptance and the application rates of CCCG.
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".