MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4286268173 · doi:10.2147/tcrm.s372464

Is There a Doctors’ Effect on Patients’ Physical Health, Beyond the Intervention and All Known Factors? A Systematic Review

2022· review· en· W4286268173 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Christoph Schnelle, Justin Clark, Rachel Mascord, Mark Jones

Bibliographic record

VenueTherapeutics and Clinical Risk Management · 2022
Typereview
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicHealthcare professionals’ stress and burnout
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicinePsychological interventionPsycINFOMEDLINEGrading (engineering)Randomized controlled trialFamily medicineConfoundingSurgeryNursingInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Purpose: Despite billions of doctor visits worldwide each year, little is known on whether doctors themselves affect patients' physical health after accounting for intervention and confounders such as patients' and doctors' data, hospital effects, nor how strong that doctors' effect is. Knowledge of surgeons' and psychotherapists' effects exists, but not for 102 other medical specialties notwithstanding the importance of such knowledge. Methods: : Randomized controlled trials (RCTs), case-control, and cohort studies including medical doctors except surgeons for any intervention, reporting the proportion of variance in patients' outcomes owing to the doctors (random effects), or the fixed effects of grading doctors by outcomes, after multivariate adjustment. Exclusions: studies of <15 doctors or solely reporting doctors' effects for known variables. Sources: Medline, Embase, PsycINFO, inception to June 2020. Manual search for papers referring/referred to by resulting studies. Risk of Bias: Using Newcastle-Ottawa scale. Results: Despite all medical interventions bar surgery being eligible, only thirty cohort papers were found, covering 36,239 doctors, with 10 specialties, 21 interventions, 60 outcomes (17 unique). Studies reported doctors' effects by grading doctors from best to worst, or by diversely calculating the doctor-attributed percentage of patients' outcome variation, ie the intra-class correlation coefficient (ICC). Sixteen studies presented fixed effects, 18 random effects, and 3 another approach. No RCTs found. Thirteen studies reported exceptionally good and/or poor performers with confidence intervals wholly outside the average performance. ICC range 0 to 33%, mean 3.9%. Highly diverse reporting, meta-analysis therefore not applicable. Conclusion: Doctors, on their own, can affect patients' physical health for many interventions and outcomes. Effects range from negligible to substantial, even after accounting for all known variables. Many published cohorts may reveal valuable information by reanalyzing their data for doctors' effects. Positive and negative doctor outliers appear regularly. Therefore, it can matter which doctor is chosen.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies, Research integrity
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.629
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.180
GPT teacher head0.537
Teacher spread0.357 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations8
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTherapeutics and Clinical Risk ManagementSame topicHealthcare professionals’ stress and burnoutFrench-language works237,207