Patient–Physician Communication and Perception of Treatment Goals in Rheumatoid Arthritis: An Online Survey of Patients and Physicians
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: To evaluate patient-physician communication and patients' understanding of treatment goals in rheumatoid arthritis (RA). METHODS: A cross-sectional online survey of patients with RA and physicians treating RA was conducted between 16 and 30 June 2021. Participants were asked to rate the importance of 17 goals on a 6-point Likert scale, and mean scores were compared between patients and physicians by the Wilcoxon rank sum test. Patients' satisfaction with physician communication and their understanding of treatment goals were also assessed. RESULTS: The responses of 502 patients and 216 physicians were analyzed. The most common patient age group was 50-59 years (28.5%), and the mean disease duration was 10.3 years. Physicians had a mean of 19.2 years of treatment experience and were treating a mean of 44.3 patients. Among the 17 goals assessed, patients placed significantly more importance on drug tapering or discontinuation as short-term goals (3-6 months) and on performing basic activities of daily living, being able to engage in daily tasks, achieving and maintaining remission, maintaining better laboratory values, and drug tapering or discontinuation as long-term goals (5-10 years; all adjusted p < 0.05). Patient treatment satisfaction was significantly associated with disease activity, a feeling of treatment effectiveness, satisfaction with physician communication, and agreement with physician goals. CONCLUSION: Differences exist among patients with RA and physicians treating RA regarding the importance of short- and long-term treatment goals. Good patient-physician communication appears to be important for improving patient satisfaction. TRIAL REGISTRATION: University Hospital Medical Information Network identifier: UMIN000044463.
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 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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) | 0.000 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".