Patient roles in primary care interprofessional teams: a constructivist grounded theory of patient and health care provider perspectives
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Health care providers are increasingly asked to work in interprofessional teams to enhance the care provided to and health outcomes of their patients. However, there is little evidence on how to include patients in meaningful roles on these teams to support their health monitoring and management. The purpose of this study was to gain insight into roles that patients can assume within their health care teams and to understand the conditions and processes required for patient roles to be enacted. Ten patients and 10 health care providers from two Family Health Teams in Southwestern Ontario, Canada, participated in individual interviews to learn about their perspectives on patient roles in teams. Data collection and analysis strategies generated theoretical concepts, and member-checking interviews provided final feedback on the framework. This study resulted in a comprehensive framework of two roles and the conditions and processes required for patient-health care provider interactions within primary care interprofessional teams. Further researchers could use this framework to build knowledge of patient roles in interprofessional teams across varying health care settings and patient populations.
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 | 0.032 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.039 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".