Patients’ perspectives on their motivations for participating in non-clinical medical teaching and what they gain from their experience: a qualitative study informed by critical theory
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In 2019-2021, we engaged in a project aimed at developing, implementing, and evaluating an educational intervention actively involving patient-teachers in undergraduate medical education at Université Laval, Quebec, Canada. Patient-teachers were invited to participate in small group discussion workshops during which medical students deliberate on legal, ethical, and moral issues arising from medical practice. Patients were expected to bring other perspectives, based on their experience with illness and the healthcare system. Little is still known about patients' perspectives on their participation experience in such context. Informed by critical theory, our qualitative study aims to document,: (i) the motivating factors for patients' participation in our intervention; and (ii) what patients gained from the experience. Data collection was based on 10 semi-structured interviews with patient-teachers. A thematic analysis was conducted using NVivo software. Motivators for participation arose from: (i) perceived consistency between patients' individual characteristics and those of the project, and (ii) conceiving the project as a means to reach individual and social goals. What patients gained mainly refers to (1) the appreciation of a positive, enriching, motivating yet uncomfortable and destabilizing experience; (2) a deconstruction of biases against the medical field and critical thinking about their own experience; (3) new knowledge, with a potential impact on their future interactions with the healthcare system. Results reveal patients as non-neutral thinking and knowing subjects, engaged in the participation experience as active teachers and learners. They also highlight the empowering and emancipatory nature of the learning gained through patients' participation experience. These conclusions prompt us to promote transformative interventional approaches that question the pervasive power issues in medical teaching and value patients' specific knowledge in teaching and learning the Art of Medicine.
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 | 0.023 | 0.029 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.011 | 0.013 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".