The Ethical Foundations of Accompanying Patients: The Need for Institutionalization
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The partnership approach is part of a broader shift in healthcare that seeks to empower patients in their own care. Accompanying patients (APs) extend the concept of peer support. They are experienced patients who engage directly and individually with new patients, enhancing the partnership model. However, the ethical foundations of this role and the ethical tensions arising from its integration are underexplored. To identify the key skills and values required by APs and the ethical tensions they experience, we conducted a qualitative study based on in-depth interviews with nineteen APs between January and May 2021 in Québec, Canada. Interviews explored motivations, skills, values, and experiences in healthcare institutions. Thematic analysis was complemented by Tannahill's public health ethics framework to interpret the ethical tensions identified. The core values identified for this role were empathy, respect, and altruism. All participants agreed that experiential knowledge was paramount. APs identified independence from healthcare institutions as the key to connecting and developing a trusting relationship with patients. However, they also expressed a need to be part of the healthcare system to ensure the sustainability of their role. Our results show an ethical tension between the philosophical core of APs and their needs to pursue their functions. We conclude that independence and authenticity as an AP is not necessarily incompatible with institutionalization, professionalization, and remuneration. These can be achieved if AP programmes are aligned with the philosophy of patient partnership, structured with flexible criteria, and remain self-regulated.
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 | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".