Vulnerabilities in clinician–parent exchanges and the cascade of communication traps: a review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This review considers parent-clinician interactions that are associated with vulnerabilities in communication and what we refer to as 'communication traps'. Communication traps are defined by high-stress situations with affect-laden subject matter that can lead to progressively dysfunctional communications/exchanges that are avoidable. While this framework was developed in neonatology, it can be applied to other clinical practices.Communication competencies in paediatrics require the rapid development of a therapeutic alliance between parents and clinicians to ensure the provision of best care to their infants. In order to facilitate parent-clinician communication, our framework focuses clinicians' attention on the affective, behavioural and cognitive (ABC) cues that are indicative of real, apparent or potential communication traps. Strategies are provided to slow down clinicians' responses to more effectively consider ABC cues that suggest if patients/parents have failed to engage or disengage from a situation. This framework is illustrated by presenting a narrative synthesised from a number of experiences that clinicians have encountered. This review identifies key decision points in the communication process that, if left unaddressed, can cascade into communication traps which may be difficult to escape.Using results from communication studies and psychological research, our framework was developed to identify key decision points for ABC cues that can be used to prevent falling into communication traps.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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".