Paradox of Patient-Centered Care and the Implications for Patient Involvement in Continuing Professional Development
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Patient-centered care (PCC) is widely considered as essential in chronic disease management. As the underlying rationale for engaging patients in continuing professional development (CPD) is commonly described as fostering care that is more patient-centered, we hoped to understand the discursive conditions for how educators and health professionals can (or cannot) learn with, from, and about patients. METHODS: Using diabetes as a case, we conducted a Foucauldian discourse analysis of an archive of relevant policy documents, professional and educational texts, to explore different conceptualizations of practice and the implications for PCC. We also conducted in-depth interviews with a purposive sample of physicians to understand their experiences in providing and teaching PCC. We sought to understand: How has PCC been discursively constructed? Whose interests does advocating PCC serve? What are the implications for patient involvement in CPD? RESULTS: We describe three discursive constructions of PCC, each extending the reach of biomedical power. PCC as a disease intervention emphasizes knowing and relating to patients to normalize laboratory test results. PCC as a form of confession promotes patients to come to their own realizations to become responsible for their own health, but through the lens and evaluation of physicians. PCC as a disciplinary technique makes visible the possibility of using a checklist to judge physician competency in providing PCC. DISCUSSION: PCC may be constructed in ways that paradoxically reinforce rather than challenge conventional, provider-centric paradigms. Our results challenge educators to acknowledge the existence and effects of discourses when involving patients in the planning and delivery of CPD.
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 | 0.125 | 0.148 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.019 | 0.100 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.020 | 0.020 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.021 |
| Research integrity | 0.009 | 0.015 |
| 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".