Twenty years on – has patient-centered care been equally well integrated among medical specialties?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The concept of 'patient-centered care' was touted as a pillar of good clinical practice and endorsed by the US Institute of Medicine in a seminal 2001 publication. We explore the extent to which differing medical specialties have engaged with the concept over the last 20 years and how and why this attention has varied among a sample of medical specialties since 2001. METHODS: Reference to patient-centered care in the medical literature for selected specialties was used as a proxy for clinical application of patient-centered care in those disciplines. We undertook a statistical analysis and historical review of the medical literature that references the concept of patient-centered care in pediatrics, obstetrics and gynecology (OB-GYN), orthopedics, radiology, dermatology, and neurosurgery. We analyzed the extent to which the literature referencing patient-centered care has changed for the six disciplines since first mentioned in the Institute of Medicine 2001 publication. We measured changes over time in reference to patient-centered care in the medical literature for the six diverse medical specialties. RESULTS: The six disciplines differed significantly in reference to patient-centered care when comparing publications between the disciplines (p < 0.001). Pediatrics showed the most extensive reference to the concept followed by OB-GYN. In contrast, patient-centered care was hardly mentioned in dermatology and neurosurgery, nor orthopedics or radiology. When correcting for the number of papers published in the different fields, reference to patient-centered care is ~18X more common in pediatrics than in neurosurgery. CONCLUSION: Uptake, attention, and applicability of the principles of patient-centered care have varied over the last 20 years. Differences among specialties appear to reflect true differences in patient centricities in the disciplines, with higher uptake in specialties that are person-oriented rather than technique-oriented. Greater engagement with patient-centered care correlates strongly with the number of female physicians in each field.
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 | 0.022 | 0.083 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.010 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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".