Patient participation in medical consultations: the experience of patients from various ethnolinguistic backgrounds
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Patient participation in health care is a priority. Yet, patients’ perspective with regards to their experiences of participation is not well understood. Moreover, few studies have attempted to explore the perspective of ethnolinguistic minority patients. The objectives of this study, to explore 1) patients’ experiences of participation in medical consultations with physicians, and 2) potential variations in these experiences based on participants’ ethnolinguistic status. Using a qualitative design, 60 participants, from various ethnolinguistic background, took part in individual semi-structured interviews. A content analysis was performed to identify emerging themes. The results, five themes emerged in response to the first objective and are organized in two key dimensions: a) participation in terms of information exchange (e.g. asking questions, providing information), and b) participation in terms of assertive behaviours (e.g. setting the agenda, expressing one’s viewpoint, making a request). Across these themes, two levels of participation emerged: proactive participation (i.e. patient initiated) and responsive participation (i.e. physician initiated). Proactive participation was discussed more often. Patients also discussed experiences of non-participation, although these were less common. In response to the second objective, patients who faced a language barrier, regardless of their ethnic background, discussed less participative experiences. In general, participants spoke positively of experiences in which they participated, thus suggesting that patient participation is valued by patients. Patients seemed to have a broad view of patient participation, thus suggesting that the concept of patient participation should be extended beyond participation in decision-making. Language fluency seems key to ensure patient participation.
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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 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".