Rethinking the Difficult Patient: Formative Qualitative Study Using Participatory Theater to Improve Physician-Patient Communication in Rheumatology
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Effective physician-patient communication is crucial for positive health outcomes for patients with chronic diseases. However, current methods of physician education in communication are often insufficient to help physicians understand how patients' actions are influenced by the contexts within which they live. An arts-based participatory theater approach can provide the necessary health equity framing to address this deficiency. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to develop, pilot, and conduct a formative evaluation of an interactive arts-based communication skills intervention for graduate-level medical trainees grounded in a narrative representative of the experience of patients with systemic lupus erythematosus. METHODS: We hypothesized that the delivery of interactive communication modules through a participatory theater approach would lead to changes in both attitudes and the capacity to act on those attitudes among participants in 4 conceptual categories related to patient communication (understanding social determinants of health, expressing empathy, shared decision-making, and concordance). We developed a participatory, arts-based intervention to pilot this conceptual framework with the intended audience (rheumatology trainees). The intervention was delivered through routine educational conferences at a single institution. We conducted a formative evaluation by collecting qualitative focus group feedback to evaluate the implementation of the modules. RESULTS: Our formative data suggest that the participatory theater approach and the design of the modules added value to the participants' learning experience by facilitating interconnection of the 4 communication concepts (eg, participants were able to gain insight into both what physicians and patients were thinking about on the same topic). Participants also provided several suggestions for improving the intervention such as ensuring that the didactic material had more active engagement and considering additional ways to acknowledge real-world constraints (eg, limited time with patients) in implementing communication strategies. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings from this formative evaluation of communication modules suggest that participatory theater is an effective method for framing physician education with a health equity lens, although considerations in the realms of functional demands of health care providers and use of structural competency as a framing concept are needed. The integration of social and structural contexts into the delivery of this communication skills intervention may be important for the uptake of these skills by intervention participants. Participatory theater provided an opportunity for dynamic interactivity among participants and facilitated greater engagement with the communication module content.
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 | 0.059 | 0.067 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.011 | 0.014 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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".