Culture and physician-patient communication: a qualitative exploration of residents' experiences and attitudes.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Increasing evidence suggests that communication plays a central role in effective clinical care. To facilitate effective instruction in this domain, this study seeks to understand how pediatric residents approach the challenge of cross-cultural communication. METHODS: A convenience sample of 29 pediatric residents participated in five focus groups that were jointly facilitated by a clinical and a process expert. Discussion was stimulated using two video scenarios of pediatric cross-cultural communication challenges. RESULTS: Seven dominant categories were evident in the discussions: characteristics of culture, beliefs about culture, attitudes towards culture, opinions about how to build expertise in communication, cultural conflict, insights regarding prejudice, and comments about interview technique. Residents tended to view culture and difference as residing in patients (not in themselves), reflecting their assumption that western medicine is acultural. CONCLUSIONS: Residents believe that lack of knowledge about other cultures causes their communication difficulties. Our findings suggest, however, that more basic issues may underlie their difficulties. Residents may recognize prejudice in the abstract but fail to see it in their environment, and they may spend minimal time reflecting on their professional culture and beliefs.
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 | 0.007 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".