Patient-Partners as Educators: Vulnerability Related to Sharing of Lived Experience
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Patient-partners are invaluable in health professions’ education. Sharing their lived experiences with prospective and current healthcare providers can provide an opportunity for these participants to hone their patient-centric skills. However, sharing stories publicly is a vulnerable role and may feel emotionally risky for patient-partners. Using reflective dialogue, this manuscript outlines recommendations through the Sender-Receiver Model of Communication for Patient-Partners encounters when working with patient-partners in health professions’ education. These recommendations include recognizing that: Patient-partners need to consider if they are ready to share their story. Some stories are wounds requiring further healing; other stories are scars fully processed by patient-partners and ready to be shared publicly. The audience should differentiate between questions that can promote critical thinking versus feel like a “personal attack.” Audiences should recognize vulnerability patient-partners may experience in sharing their stories and engage accordingly. Pre-session and post-session debriefs are important. Shared stories may elicit intense emotions from patient-partners and audiences. Both groups should be given an opportunity to process and work through emotions.
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 | 0.029 | 0.077 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.012 | 0.015 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.014 | 0.013 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.030 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".