Use of patients’ unsolicited correspondence to a family doctor to describe and understand valued components of a doctor-patient relationship: A Hermeneutics approach
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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 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 | 0.016 | 0.040 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".