Quality of communication with patients and difficulties in close relationships among health care workers during the COVID-19 pandemic
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Communication is a skill and its quality is associated with adult attachment styles. This study aimed to assess the association between self-reported quality of health care workers' (HCWs) communication with their patients and HCWs' attachment styles and personal relationship status and quality during the COVID-19 pandemic in Poland. Material and methods: Two thousand three hundred three HCWs participated in the online survey conducted in all voivodeships in Poland in early 2022, including 1791 individuals living in close relationships (defined as being in a relationship for at least six months). The study explored this association among four groups of HCWs: physicians (n = 498), nurses (n = 1216), paramedics (n = 166), others (n = 423). Communication competencies were evaluated using the 12-item Health Professionals Communication Scale (HPCSS-12) (range 12-72) measuring empathy, informative communication, respect, and social skills. The quality of the HCWs' relationships was examined using Experiences in Close Relationships -Revised Scale (ECR-RS), which measures security of attachment. Results: The overall mean HPCSS-12 index was 59.58 7.36, with a significant difference between physicians according to their relationship status. Problems in relationships were reported by 24.5% of respondents, ranging from 21.2% among physicians to 31.7% among paramedics. HCWs reporting a less secure attachment style scored 2.73 points lower on the HP-CSS scale as compared to those with no such problems (p < 0.001). In males, having good and secure relationships was associated with better communication particularly among the group of other HCWs (64.55 7.05) and in paramedics (61.83 3.94). Also, high HPCSS-12 values were achieved by female physicians and other female professionals living in secure relationships (61.61 7.13 and 61.04 6.30, respectively). Conclusions: Health care providers should be aware that the quality of HCW-patient communication is not only associated with gender, age, or occupational group, but also with the HCW's personal situation in a family or other close relationship.
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 | 0.004 | 0.047 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| 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".