Where Does the Patient Fit? An Analysis of Word Use Within the Context of Interprofessional Collaborative Care
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Patient-centeredness is considered central to interprofessional collaborative patient care as a participatory, partnered approach between health care professionals and patients. Content analysis of 501 articles from the 1986, 1987, 1988, 1996, 2006, 2013, 2014, and 2018 volumes of a selected journal was undertaken. The purposes were to identify contexts in which the term patient was used in articles with a primary focus on interprofessional care and to identify trends in its usage. With Dilthey's ideas on language as a framework, patient and its variations in the articles were coded under five categories. Findings suggest that the term patient appears predominantly as a modifier for activities enacted by experts and a platform for the discussion of relationships among professionals. There is limited evidence that use of the term patient fits within the context of partnership, suggesting that the language in published interprofessional collaborative research and discussion is currently largely expert, not patient-centered.
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 | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 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".