Level of patients’ knowledge, confidence, and acceptance regarding the role of residents in a family medicine teaching clinic
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Although participation of patients is essential for completing the training of medical residents, little is known about the relationships among patients' level of knowledge about the role and responsibilities of medical residents, their confidence in residents' abilities, and their acceptance toward receiving care from residents. The study sought to clarify if and how these three patient-resident relationship components are interrelated. METHODS: This is a cross-sectional study using a self-administered questionnaire distributed in 2016 to a convenience sample of adult patients (≥ 18 years old) visiting a family medicine teaching clinic. Proportions and chi-square statistics were used to describe and compare groups, respectively. RESULTS: Of the 471 patients who answered the questionnaire, only 28% were found to be knowledgeable about the role of family medicine residents. Between 54% and 83% of patients reported being highly confident in the ability of residents to perform five routine tasks. Of the patients surveyed, 69% agreed to see a resident during their next appointments. Patients with a high level of confidence in residents' abilities were more likely to agree to see a resident during future appointments (p <0.0001). There was no significant association between level of knowledge and either confidence or acceptance. CONCLUSIONS: Although the majority of patients had poor knowledge about the role of residents, this was not related to their acceptance of being cared for by residents. A higher level of confidence in residents' ability to perform certain tasks was associated with greater acceptance toward seeing a resident during future appointments.
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 | 0.002 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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 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".