MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2980418086 · doi:10.1186/s12875-019-1024-6

Use of patients’ unsolicited correspondence to a family doctor to describe and understand valued components of a doctor-patient relationship: A Hermeneutics approach

2019· article· en· W2980418086 on OpenAlexafffund
Mark J. Yaffe⃰, Richard Hovey, Charo Rodríguez

Bibliographic record

VenueBMC Family Practice · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicEmpathy and Medical Education
Canadian institutionsMcGill UniversitySt Mary's Hospital CentreMcGill University Health Centre
FundersSt. George's, University of LondonMcGill University
KeywordsMedicineHermeneuticsFamily medicineEpistemology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Communication and behavior within doctor - patient encounters have been examined using varied techniques; however the nature of unsolicited writings from patients to their family doctors has rarely been reported. This paper therefore aimed to explore the content of, and motivation for, such correspondence. METHODS: One hundred and seven writings to one family physician about care provided during a four decade period were considered. Univariate analyses were used to identify features of patients or family members who wrote personalized notes to the doctor, when, and in what fashion. A hermeneutic approach helped look at the content of the notes, the specific words or sentiments used to describe encounters or care received, and possible motivations for writing. Iterative review of words or phrases generated themes which summarized appreciated physician or relational attributes, as well as motivations for writing. RESULTS: Notes were mostly handwritten, predominantly by women, and frequently coinciding with holidays and life span events. Appreciated doctor characteristics and behaviors were (1) quality care; and physician (2) competence; (3) physical presence; (4) positive personal traits; (5) provision of emotional support; and (6) spiritual impact. Motivations for writing were grouped as desire to (1) express appreciation for an established relationship; (2) acknowledge value / benefit experienced from continuity of care; (3) seek catharsis, emotional relief or closure; (4) reflect on termination of care; (5) validate care that incorporates both Hippocratic tradition and Asklepian healing; and (6) share personal reflection, experience, or impact. CONCLUSIONS: Unsolicited writings provide personalized links from patients to physicians, expressing thoughts perhaps difficult to share face to face. They offer potential as teaching tools about the content of doctor-patient relationships; for example, the writers studied expressed appreciation for quality continuity care that was competent, considerate, and supportive of emotional and spiritual needs.

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 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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.314
Threshold uncertainty score0.728

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.143
GPT teacher head0.328
Teacher spread0.185 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations13
Published2019
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBMC Family PracticeSame topicEmpathy and Medical EducationFrench-language works237,207