Communicating bad news: attitudes and modes of communication of the health professions
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
SUMMARY: TBackground. Information regarding ominous prognoses, which may cause concern and distress, should be provided carefully and cautiously, using non-traumatizing terminology, accommodating the patient's fears, and not excluding elements of hope. Goal. To analyze the difficulties of health care providers in the process of communicating bad news. Materials and Methods. An observational, cross-sectional, multicenter study was conducted from March to August 2021 among Italian Physicians and Nurses. Results. The results of the study indicate a greater participation of Nurse practitioners than Physicians, a fact that may indicate how necessary it is, to overcome the belief that the communication of bad news is of exclusive medical relevance. Among the participants in the study, about half, equal to 46.7% stated that they had no specific training, while the remainder claimed to have attended master's or higher education courses in 8.5% of cases, 23% attended conferences, while 21.8% acquired their skills through work experience. Conclusions. The communication of bad news, needs to be recognized in the same way as those procedures that characterize care itself, and for which the highest possible quality is sought.
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.
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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 it