Dilemmas and Strategy When Companion Participation During Appointments Differs from Patient and Companion Expectations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cancer patients often attend medical interactions with at least one companion. The degree to which companions participate varies, ranging from passive observer to active advocate. However, the structure of the medical interaction often promotes dyadic rather than triadic communication, creating ambiguity about to the degree to which companions can and should participate. Participants (N = 34, 16 dyads) included gynecologic cancer patients who were undergoing chemotherapy treatment (n = 18) and their companions (n = 16); all participants were separately interviewed. Interviews included discussion of dyadic communication patterns within medical interactions. The normative rhetorical theory (Goldsmith, Citation2019) was applied as a guiding framework. Patients discussed the dilemma they experience when companions are expected but absent. Patients and companions provided positive reports of companion communication when behavior aligned with expectations. Alternatively, patients and companions experience dilemmas when companions participate more than or differently from how patients and/or companions had expected. Companions provided one strategy for managing the dilemma of how to participate in medical interactions. Implications and limitations are discussed.
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 | 0.020 | 0.069 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".