MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4404838322 · doi:10.1370/afm.22.s1.6202

Perspectives of family physician educators on implementing shared decision making for preventive health care

2024· article· en· W4404838322 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Roland Grad, Amrita Sandhu, Dorsa Majdpour, sarah kitner, Charo Rodríguez, Gabrielle Stevens, Glyn Elwyn

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicPatient-Provider Communication in Healthcare
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsThematic analysisContext (archaeology)Focus groupMedical educationFamily medicineHealth careMedicineQualitative researchDescriptive statisticsPopulationNursingPsychologySociology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Context: Shared decision making (SDM) is often underutilised in clinical practice. In prior work, we observed varying views among resident physicians about the need for SDM. However, we know little about the views on implementing SDM in practice from the perspective of those who supervise and educate residents. Objective: To explore the views of family physician educators about the implementation of SDM in clinical practice, with a focus on the delivery of preventive health care. Study Design and Analysis: Qualitative descriptive study using a practical thematic analysis of data from individual online interviews. Population: We interviewed family physician educators based at three teaching units in Montreal. Using a purposive approach to recruitment, participants had to be practising family doctors who supervised family medicine residents in their clinics. Results: Nine female and six male family physician educators were interviewed, with practice experience ranging from 2 to 42 years (average 19 years). They spent 93% of their time in community-based clinical practice (range 66-100%) and supervised residents from 4 to 12 hours a week (average 9). We identified five overarching themes (with sub themes in italicised text), grouped into two categories: 1. Conceptual ideas about the nature of SDM and 2. Challenges that surround putting SDM into practice when delivering preventive health care. Themes in category #1 were: (1a) Participants held diverse and dynamic understandings of SDM (difficulty conceptualising what SDM is, understanding of SDM changes over time, SDM requires clinical equipoise). (1b) Participants identified why SDM is important (patient centred care). Themes in category #2 were: (2a) When to engage in SDM is influenced by multiple external factors (systemic factors, research-based evidence) as well as (2b) Patient factors (social factors, discordance or misalignment between doctor and patient on a specific decision, patient safety). (2c) Resources and strategies are needed to put SDM into action. Supporting quotes will be presented for each theme. Conclusion: In the context of delivering preventive health care, we found inconsistent conceptual understanding of SDM across physician educators in Family Medicine. As a result, putting SDM into practice faces multiple challenges.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.021
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.036
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.030
Threshold uncertainty score0.112

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0210.036
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0100.007
Scholarly communication0.0050.004
Open science0.0010.004
Research integrity0.0030.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.178
GPT teacher head0.522
Teacher spread0.343 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicPatient-Provider Communication in Healthcare→French-language works237,207→