Dermatologists Communication Skills and Performance From Point of View of Patients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: Effective communication is an important issue in patient-doctor interaction which is even more important regarding chronic disorders which need a strong relationship between patient and clinician for better compliance and optimal control disease. Objectives: This study was aimed to develop the best cultural adapted Persian version of the 28-item Calgary- Cambridge Observation Guide (CCOG) questionnaire. Methods: In this descriptive-analytic study, data collected from 400 patients attending the outpatient dermatology clinics of 3 major hospitals in Tehran using the modified Persian version of CCOG questionnaire, both before and after being visited by dermatologists. Results: The difference of CCG scores for all of questions, except for questions number 1,16 and 22, was statistically significant. The highest score, both before and after visiting, attained by question regarding being respectful. The lowest scores for necessary behavior and the adequate amount of execution were related to questions number 3 (Introducing self) and 4 (Introducing role), respectively. Age and educational level of patients were significantly correlated with their expectations regarding communication skills of clinician. Conclusions: This study showed the acceptable validity of modified Persian version of CCOG-24 item questionnaire. Our findings also demonstrated that there was a significant difference between what patients expected from a dermatologist and the manner they actually were treated regarding physician communication skills.
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 | 0.001 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".