La communication médecin-patient : demande exprimée et motif réel de consultation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
tude originale Rsum Introduction : La consultation de mdecine gnrale est une rencontre entre un mdecin et un patient demandeur de soin, qu'il recherche en exprimant un motif de consultation.La demande exprime d'emble n'est pas forcment sa principale proccupation.Objectif : Dterminer quelles sont les diffrentes techniques de communication utilises dans les entretiens qui favoriseraient l'expression des motifs secondairement rvls par le patient et tablir leur moment d'apparition dans la consultation.Mthodes : Une tude qualitative descriptive a t ralise partir d'une base de donnes d'enregistrements audio de 72 consultations chez trois mdecins gnralistes exerant dans trois cabinets libraux de Gironde.Les verbatims obtenus par retranscription manuelle ont t analyss par la mthode de double codage avec triangulation des donnes.Nous avons tabli un score de communication selon le guide de Calgary-Cambridge.Rsultats : Les motifs secondairement rvls sont principalement noncs au cours de l'interrogatoire.Nous retrouvons majoritairement des techniques de communication comme la facilitation, les questions ouvertes et fermes, la reformulation, la clarification, le rsum, l'empathie, l'implication active, la lgitimation, l'humour et les menus-propos.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 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) | 0.286 | 0.004 |
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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".