MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3012506855 · doi:10.1186/s12913-020-05082-z

Multi-level strategies to tailor patient-centred care for women: qualitative interviews with clinicians

2020· article· en· W3012506855 on OpenAlexafffund
Tali Filler, Sheila Dunn, Sherry L. Grace, Sharon E. Straus, Donna E. Stewart, Anna R. Gagliardi

Bibliographic record

VenueBMC Health Services Research · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSex and Gender in Healthcare
Canadian institutionsYork UniversityWomen's College HospitalSt. Michael's HospitalToronto General HospitalUniversity Health Network
FundersOntario Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care
KeywordsMedicineQualitative researchNursingHealth informaticsNursing researchHealth administrationHealth careHealth services researchFamily medicinePublic health

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Patient-centered care (PCC) is one approach for ameliorating persistent gendered disparities in health care quality, yet no prior research has studied how to achieve patient-centred care for women (PCCW). The purpose of this study was to explore how clinicians deliver PCCW, challenges they face, and the strategies they suggest are needed to support PCCW. METHODS: We conducted semi-structured qualitative interviews (25-60 min) with clinicians. Thirty-seven clinicians representing 7 specialties (family physicians, cardiologists, cardiac surgeons, obstetricians/gynecologist, psychiatrists, nurses, social workers) who manage depression (n = 16), cardiovascular disease (n = 11) and contraceptive counseling (n = 10), conditions that affect women across the lifespan. We used constant comparative analysis to inductively analyze transcripts, mapped themes to a 6-domain PCC conceptual framework to interpret findings, and complied with qualitative research reporting standards. RESULTS: Clinicians said that women don't always communicate their health concerns and physicians sometimes disregard women's health concerns, warranting unique PCC approaches.. Clinicians described 39 approaches they used to tailor PCC for women across 6 PCC domains: foster a healing relationship, exchange information, address emotions/concerns, manage uncertainty, make decisions, and enable self-management. Additional conditions that facilitated PCCW were: privacy, access to female clinicians, accommodating children through onsite facilities, and flexible appointment formats and schedules. Clinicians suggested 7 strategies needed to address barriers of PCCW they identified at the: patient-level (online appointments, transport to health services, use of patient partners to plan and/or deliver services), clinician-level (medical training and continuing professional development in PCC and women's health), and system-level (funding models for longer appointment times, multidisciplinary teamwork to address all PCC domains). CONCLUSIONS: Our research revealed numerous strategies that clinicians can use to optimize PCCW, and health care managers and policy-makers can use to support PCCW through programs and policies. Identified strategies addressed all domains of an established PCC conceptual framework. Future research should evaluate the implementation and impact of these strategies on relevant outcomes such as perceived PCC among women and associated clinical outcomes to prepare for broad scale-up.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.044
Threshold uncertainty score0.837

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.470
GPT teacher head0.556
Teacher spread0.086 · 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 designQualitative
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

Citations40
Published2020
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBMC Health Services ResearchSame topicSex and Gender in HealthcareFrench-language works237,207