MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

38 Exploring communication in clinical encounters: a longitudinal qualitative study of adolescents with non-traumatic knee pain attending in secondary care

2025· article· en· W4406478527 on OpenAlexaff
Chris Djurtoft, Kristine Holm Laursen, Mélanie Noël, Alexandra Neville, M. Bridget Zimmerman, Queenie K. W. Li, Michael Skovdal Rathleff, Simon Kristoffer Johansen

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicNursing Roles and Practices
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsKnee painPhysical therapyLongitudinal studyQualitative researchPhysical medicine and rehabilitationMedicinePsychologyClinical psychologyAlternative medicineOsteoarthritisSociology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduction Effective communication is essential for building trust, reducing diagnostic uncertainty and supporting adolescents with knee pain. The experiences of the adolescents during the clinical encounter can influence their acceptance, pain beliefs and self-management abilities. Still, few studies have explored the patient-clinician exchanges during the clinical encounter. Therefore, we aimed to explore the communication between adolescents with non-traumatic knee pain and orthopedic surgeons, and to understand how these interactions influence adolescents understanding of their pain condition and self-management.Materials and Methods We recruited adolescents aged 10–19 years experiencing non-traumatic knee pain. We video-recorded consultations with adolescents attending first appointments with an orthopedic surgeon. We conducted two follow-up interviews with the adolescents, 1–3 and 14–17 days after their initial consultation. Data were analyzed using inductive reflexive thematic analysis. The findings from all time points were synthesized, forming the basis for the longitudinal analysis.Results Nine adolescents with non-traumatic knee pain were included. The consultations lasted between 11 and 17 minutes. Adolescents struggled to understand messages about their knee pain, leading to uncertainty about the diagnosis, management plan, and need for further examinations. They also found it difficult to recall what was discussed during the clinical encounter. This meant that some individuals paused their activities, stagnated their self-management and youths waiting for clear answers.Conclusion The study illustrated the complexity of educating adolescents with non-traumatic knee pain. We observed a significant loss of information and uncertainties during/after the clinical encounter. More research into how health information is retained in adolescents is needed.

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)0.013
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.027
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 score0.017
Threshold uncertainty score0.069

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0130.027
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0080.005
Scholarly communication0.0050.003
Open science0.0010.005
Research integrity0.0010.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.194
GPT teacher head0.535
Teacher spread0.340 · 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
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicNursing Roles and Practices→French-language works237,207→