Pivoting to be Patient-Centered: A Study on Hidden Psychological Costs of Tele-Healthcare and the Patient-Provider Relationship
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose: While the COVID-19 pandemic has necessitated a shift toward virtual medicine, there are some potentially important limitations with this modality of healthcare. One such concern, which has not yet been elucidated, is how telephone-based versus in-person visits differentially impact patients’ perceived autonomy and the resulting patient-provider relationship. Grounded in self-determination theory (SDT), this pilot study addresses this question by investigating the association between patients’ perceived autonomy support and relationship needs satisfaction (autonomy, competence, relatedness) in both types of visits with their family doctor and care team. Methods: Running from Sept. 2020 to Feb. 2021, data was collected via convenience sampling from n = 66 patients (34 in person, 32 virtual) nested within k = 6 family physicians. Patients completed an online survey containing two previously validated scales derived from SDT: The Healthcare Climate Questionnaire and the Basic Need Satisfaction in Relationships Scale. Each scale was adapted to reflect a virtual or in-person visit experience. A random effects model captured the relationship between the motivational variables in each group, adjusting for various sociodemographic effects. Results: Both groups’ perceived autonomy support positively related to their relationship needs satisfaction with their family doctor and care team. Compared to traditional in-person visits, patients perceived the virtual healthcare climate as significantly less autonomy-supportive. Conclusions: In line with SDT, findings from this study suggest that when patients sense a more autonomy-supportive healthcare climate, they will experience a more needs-satisfying relationship with their family doctor and healthcare team. These results have potentially significant implications for supporting patient motivation and facilitating optimal health and wellness outcomes, particularly within the virtual care environment.
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 | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 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 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".