Designing a truth-based communication model in patient ethical care process
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Providing information based on truth is very important in patients' treatment-related decisions and reduces emotional and physical sufferings as well as patient costs. The aim of this study was to design a model that is based on the culture and health-care context of Iran in order to establish a truth-based communication and provide accurate information to patient. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This qualitative study was conducted in 2019. Data were collected through semi-structured interviews with 18 nurses who had been selected by purposeful sampling method. Data analysis was performed in two steps. In the first step, the participants' experiences were determined using the grounded theory approach. In the next step, using Walker and Evant's (2011) method, the concepts and statements were combined and presented in a central concept. RESULTS: The central concept in this study was "an attempt to establish a truth-based communication with patient," and then, a truth-based communication model was presented. The components of the model were presented in three parts: improving patient communication skills, managing the situation in which the truth is presented, and the patient's participation in decision-making. CONCLUSION: To present the truth of the treatment, which can sometimes be unpleasant and bitter, it is very important to improve communication skills and choose an effective communication strategy. To establish a truth-based communication, it is necessary to create a suitable ground for communication, which should be provided in clinical setting and community.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".