Primary care of adults with severe and profound intellectual and developmental disabilities: Family physicians' perspectives on patient-physician relationships.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To explore family physicians' perspectives on the development of the patient-physician relationship with adult patients living with severe or profound intellectual and developmental disabilities (IDD). DESIGN: Constructivist grounded theory. SETTING: St John's, NL, and across Canada. PARTICIPANTS: Fifteen family physicians currently caring for patients 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 family physicians, the core process in the development of the patient-physician relationship was acceptance. This acceptance was bidirectional. With respect to family physicians accepting patients, family physicians had to accept that their patients with severe and profound IDD were as equally deserving of their respect as any other patient-as unique individuals with their own goals and potential. With respect to patients accepting their family physicians, family physicians had to seek out signs of acceptance from their patients to fully appreciate and develop a trusting relationship. This bidirectional process of acceptance required family physicians to adapt the way they practised (eg, by spending more time with the patient and finding alternate forms of communication). It also required family physicians to define their role (eg, building trust and being an advocate) in a relationship that had the patient as the primary focus but simultaneously acknowledged the important involvement of the caregiver. CONCLUSION: For family physicians, the process of acceptance seems to underpin the development of the patient-physician relationship with adult patients with severe or profound IDD. Findings highlight the need for family physicians to adapt the way they deliver care to these patients and define their role in these complex relationships. Ultimately, this study highlights family physicians' acceptance of their patients' humanity regardless of the nature of the relationship that was created between them.
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 | 0.004 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".