Patient and Provider Experiences With Compassionate Care in Virtual Physiatry: Qualitative Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Telemedicine in the realm of rehabilitation includes the remote delivery of rehabilitation services using communication technologies (eg, telephone, emails, and video). The widespread application of virtual care grants a suitable time to explore the intersection of compassion and telemedicine, especially due to the impact of COVID-19 and how it greatly influenced the delivery of health care universally. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to explore how compassionate care is understood and experienced by physiatrists and patients engaged in telemedicine. METHODS: We used a qualitative descriptive approach to conduct interviews with patients and physiatrists between June 2021 and March 2022. Patients were recruited across Canada from social media and from a single hospital network in Toronto, Ontario. Physiatrists were recruited across Canada through social media and the Canadian Association for Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation (CAPM&R) email listserve. Interviews were recorded and transcribed. Data were analyzed thematically. RESULTS: A total of 19 participants were interviewed-8 physiatrists and 11 patients. Two themes capturing physiatrists' and patients' experiences with delivering and receiving compassionate care, especially in the context of virtual care were identified: (1) compassionate care is inherently rooted in health care providers' inner intentions and are, therefore, expressed as caring behaviors and (2) virtual elements impact the delivery and receipt of compassionate care. CONCLUSIONS: Compassionate care stemmed from physiatrists' caring attitudes which then manifest as caring behaviors. In turn, these caring attitudes and behaviors enable individualized care and the establishment of a safe space for patients. Moreover, the virtual care modality both positively and negatively influenced how compassion is enacted by physiatrists and received by patients. Notably, there was large ambiguity around the norms and etiquette surrounding virtual care. Nonetheless, the flexibility and person-centeredness of virtual care cause it to be useful in health care settings.
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 | 0.011 | 0.018 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".