doi:10.1093/fampra/cmm004 Family Practice Advance Access published on 5 February 2007 GPs ’ strategies in intercultural clinical encounters
Bibliographic record
Abstract
tercultural clinical encounters. Family Practice 2007; 24: 145–151. Background. In North America and Europe, patients and physicians are increasingly likely to come from non-Western cultural backgrounds. The expectations of these patients may not match those of physicians. Objective. To identify strategies used by GPs with patients from cultures other than their own. Methods. We conducted a qualitative inductive study based on 25 semi-structured interviews with family physicians practising in Montreal, Canada. We elicited physicians ’ strategies when dealing with patients from a cultural background different from their own. We began by asking physicians to describe an encounter they found difficult and one they found easy. Results. Physicians reported three types of strategies: (i) insistence on patient adaptation to lo-cal beliefs and behaviours; (ii) physician adaptation to what he or she assumed patients wanted; and (iii) negotiation of a mutually acceptable plan. Individual physicians did not adopt the same strategy in all situations. Their choice of strategy depended on the topic. When dealing with is-sues they felt deeply about, such as the autonomy of women, many physicians insisted on pa-tient adaptation. Physicians used a patient-centred model of care, but had no framework to elicit
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 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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.
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".