MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4416509700 · doi:10.1111/hex.70484

Fostering Physician‐Patient Partnerships: The Importance of Embracing the Ontological and Epistemological Understandings of Knowledge

2025· article· en· W4416509700 on OpenAlexaff
Nicolás Fernández, Joachim P. Sturmberg

Bibliographic record

VenueHealth Expectations · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicMental Health and Patient Involvement
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGeneral partnershipOntologyMEDLINEHealth professionalsHealth careQualitative research

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

INTRODUCTION: Healthcare is becoming substantially complex in part due to greater multimorbidity, climate-related health issues, and problems related to access to care. While patient partnership is widely advocated as a strategy to adapt medical practice to the complexity, significant barriers persist. AIM: We sought to shed light on the ontological and epistemological 'tensions' generated by the implementation, sometimes by imposition, of the concept of physician-patient partnership in medical practice. METHODS: This reconceptualization of the distinctive ways of knowing is based on illustrative physician-patient interactions used to contrast the fundamental belief-systems that generate ontological and epistemological tensions impeding physician-patient partnership. We contrast knowledge valued by the prevailing positivist paradigm with the kinds of knowledge patients can contribute to ensure optimal healthcare outcomes. FINDINGS: Identifying the complementarity of evidence-based and experiential knowledges leads to a paradigmatic shift in how we perceive, interpret, and use data in the clinical setting. The two co-existing but distinct ontologies and epistemologies-neither is inherently superior to the other-are essential for a broader and concrete understanding of illness, its experience and its management. CONCLUSION: This exploration into the complex nature of physician-patient partnerships provides insights about avenues for strengthening them and making them fulfil their promise to enhance health care access and outcomes for all. PATIENT CONTRIBUTION: The first author is a kidney transplant recipient (2008) and has been actively involved in patient partnership within health research and medical education since 2010. This paper reflects his accumulated insights and observations regarding the barriers that hinder the development of effective partnerships in health care.

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)0.087
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.072
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.087
Threshold uncertainty score0.460

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0870.072
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0120.073
Scholarly communication0.0320.028
Open science0.0030.026
Research integrity0.0080.011
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.447
GPT teacher head0.488
Teacher spread0.041 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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 venueHealth ExpectationsSame topicMental Health and Patient InvolvementFrench-language works237,207