Modification of Calgary-Cambridge Observation Guide, a More Simplified and Practical Guide for Daily Consultation Practice
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: The Calgary-Cambridge Observation Guides (CCOG) is a guide that is widely used to assess Doctor-Patient Communication. The guide consists of 56 points divided into 6 categories that describe a routine consultation process, plus 15 optional points in giving explanation and planning. Due to its quite numerous points, it is quite impractical to use the guide in daily consultation practice. Therefore, a more simplified and more practical version would be favourable. Method: Six experts from different background evaluated and analysed the 56 points of CCOG based on the level of importance in daily practice. Two rounds of Delphy were used. The result of the two rounds was then recirculated to obtain confirmation of the final modified version of CCOG. Result and Discussion: A final modified version of CCOG consisting of 35 points was formed. The first step of a consultation process, Initiating the session consists of 5 points (originally 7 points). Gathering information step consists of 5 points (originally 11 points), Providing structure of 3 points (originally 4 points), Building relationship of 7 points (originally 10 points), Explanation and Planning of 11 points (originally 20 points), and Closing the Session consisting of 4 points. The modified CCOG version is still comprehensive, yet more practical for daily practice. Conclusion: Modified version of CCOG can be used as a simple, practical guide to assess Doctor Patient Communication in daily consultation practice.
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 | 0.010 | 0.032 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.005 |
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".