Interpersonal Process of Care Experience of Patients Receiving Care at a Chiropractic Outpatient Teaching Clinic
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: The aim of this study was to examine the interpersonal process of care (IPC) experience of patients receiving care at 1 chiropractic college. Methods: In this cross-sectional study, respondents attending care at the Sherman College of Chiropractic outpatient clinic completed a survey (July 2016 to June 2017) to provide their sociodemographic and clinical information and complete an adapted version of the IPC-18 to assess their IPC experience with chiropractic care. Principal component analysis and k-means cluster analysis determined natural groupings/clusters of respondents. Random forest modeling determined factors predictive of shared decision-making. Results: Ninety-nine patients (41 males, 44 females, and 14 unknown) responded. The largest group of respondents was aged 40 to 55 years and highly educated. Principal component analysis found that the first dimension was strongly influenced by the IPC-18 subscale of communication (ie, elicited concerns, explained results, and decided together). The second dimension was strongly influenced by interpersonal style (ie, disrespectful office staff). The third and fourth dimensions were strongly influenced by communication (ie, lack of clarity) and interpersonal style (ie, discrimination due to race/ethnicity), respectively. The most important predictors for shared decision-making were communication (ie, chiropractor/intern explained the results of examination findings and elicited the patient's concerns and took them seriously) and interpersonal style (ie, the patient was treated as an equal). Patient age and presenting symptoms were also important predictors of shared decision-making. Conclusion: The IPC experience of patients under care was dominantly positive, cooperative, and equitable with their chiropractor/interns and office staff. Factors predictive of shared clinical decision-making included good communication and a positive interpersonal style with the provider.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.020 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".