Effect of Attending Rheumatologists’ Big 5 Personality Traits on Patient Trust in Patients With Systemic Lupus Erythematosus: The TRUMP2-SLE Project
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Differences in communication styles based on physicians' personality traits have been identified, particularly in primary care, and these physician-related factors can be important in building patient-physician trust. This study examined the effects of rheumatologists' personality traits on patients' trust in their attending rheumatologists. METHODS: This cross-sectional study included adult Japanese patients with systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) at 5 academic medical centers between June 2020 and August 2021. The exposures were the Big 5 personality traits (ie, extraversion, agreeableness, openness, conscientiousness, and emotional stability) of attending rheumatologists using the Japanese version of the 10-Item Personality Inventory scale (1-7 points each). The outcome was the patients' trust in their attending rheumatologist using the Japanese version of the 5-item Wake Forest Physician Trust Scale (0-100 points). A general linear model was fitted. RESULTS: The study included 505 patients with a mean age of 46.8 years; 88.1% were women. Forty-three attending rheumatologists (mean age: 39.6 years; 23.3% female) were identified. After multivariable adjustment, higher extraversion and agreeableness were associated with higher trust (per 1-point increase, 3.76 points [95% CI 1.07-6.45] and 4.49 points [95% CI 1.74-7.24], respectively), and higher conscientiousness was associated with lower trust (per 1-point increase, -2.17 points [95% CI -3.31 to -1.03]). CONCLUSION: Whereas higher extraversion and agreeableness of attending rheumatologists led to higher patient trust in their rheumatologist, overly high conscientiousness may lead to lower trust resulting from the physicians' demand of responsibility and adherence to instructions from patients with SLE.
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 | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".