Communication between healthcare providers and communicatively-vulnerable patients with associated health outcomes: A scoping review of knowledge syntheses
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Summarize literature on provider-patient communication linked to health outcomes in communicatively-vulnerable patient populations. METHODS: Scoping review of reviews: systematically searched six databases. INCLUSION CRITERIA: systematic searches and syntheses of literature; one or more providers and communicatively-vulnerable patients; synchronous in-person communication; intermediate or health outcome linked to communication. RESULTS: The search yielded 14,615 citations; 47 reviews - with wide range of providers, communication vulnerabilities, communication practices, and health outcomes - met inclusion criteria. Methodology included qualitative, quantitative, and mixed approaches. Quality ranged from very low to high. Six categories of communication practices linked to health outcomes were identified: 1) motivation-based; 2) accommodation of language, culture, gender, sexual identity, and other concordance with the patient; 3) cultural adaptations of interventions; 4) use of interpreters; 5) other provider-patient communication practices; 6) patient communication practices. CONCLUSION: Communication practices were studied in a wide range of providers, with common themes regarding best practices. A unique finding is the role of the patient's communication practices. The specificity of communication practices studied is heterogeneous, with many reviews providing insufficient details. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: Motivation-based practices and culturally- and linguistically-appropriate care have impacts on patient outcomes across a range of settings with different professions and communicatively-vulnerable groups.
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 | 0.032 | 0.187 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.030 | 0.026 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| 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".