Brazil’s Community Health Workers Practicing Narrative Medicine: Patients’ Perspectives
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Narrative medicine (NM) encourages health care providers to draw on their personal experiences to establish therapeutic alliances with patients of prevention and care services. NM medicine practiced by nurses and physicians has been well documented, yet there is little understanding of how community health workers (CHWs) apply NM concepts in their day-to-day practices from patient perspectives. OBJECTIVE: To document how CHWs apply specific NM concepts in Brazil's Family Health Strategy (FHS), the key component of Brazil's Unified Health System. DESIGN: We used a semi-structured interview, grounded in Charon's (2001) framework, including four types of NM relationships: provider-patient, provider-colleague, provider-society, and provider-self. A hybrid approach of thematic analysis was used to analyze data from 27 patients. KEY RESULTS: Sample: 18 females; 13 White, 12 "Pardo" (mixed races), 12 Black. We found: (1) provider-patient relationship-CHWs offered health education through compassion, empathy, trustworthiness, patience, attentiveness, jargon-free communication, and altruism; (2) provider-colleague relationship-CHWs lacked credibility as perceived by physicians, impacting their effectiveness negatively; (3) provider-society relationship-CHWs mobilized patients civically and politically to advocate for and address emerging health care and prevention needs; (4) provider-self relationship-patients identified possible low self-esteem among CHWs and a need to engage in self-care practices to abate exhaustion from intense labor and lack of resources. CONCLUSION: This study adds to patient perspectives on how CHWs apply NM concepts to build and sustain four types of relationships. Findings suggest the need to improve provider-colleague relationships by ongoing training to foster cooperation among FHS team members. More generous organizational supports (wellness initiatives and supervision) may facilitate the provider-self relationship. Public education on CHWs' roles is needed to enhance the professional and societal credibility of their roles and responsibilities. Future research should investigate how CHWs' personality traits may influence their ability to apply NM.
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 | 0.002 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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 | 0.002 |
| 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".