Patient perspectives: Four pillars of professionalism
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Professionalism is a core component of healthcare practice and education; however, there is often not a consistent description of professionalism, and current definitions lack a key perspective: that of the patient. This study aimed to deepen understandings of patients’ perspectives on how professionalism should be enacted by healthcare providers. Using a phenomenological approach informed by constructivist theory, the study team conducted semi-structured interviews and focus groups with 21 patients to ascertain their views on professionalism. Data analysis was conducted using a constant comparative approach wherein initial analysis informed subsequent data collection. Participant themes fell into four pillars of professionalism: taking a collaborative human-first approach; communicating with heart and mind; behaving with integrity; and practicing competently. This study highlights patient perspectives on professionalism and examines consistencies and differences between those perspectives and those of healthcare providers, which are extensively described in the literature. While published literature highlights competence and communication as main aspects of professionalism which our participants also focused on, participants in this study emphasized integrating patients into care teams, employing empathy, and demonstrating integrity. Experience Framework This article is associated with the Patient, Family & Community Engagement lens of The Beryl Institute Experience Framework. (http://bit.ly/ExperienceFramework) Access other PXJ articles related to this lens. Access other resources related to this lens.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".