A Qualitative Examination of Health Care Professionals' Experience as Patient Educators: Cases from Canadian Chiropractors
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This qualitative research study examined the patient education experience from the point of view of health care professionals, namely doctors of chiropractic in the Greater Toronto Area practicing for up to ten years. Health care professionals’ views and beliefs of this important aspect of health care have not been well studied. Patient education is defined as, “the process by which patients learn or acquire knowledge about his/her health status or condition and may involve learning in the cognitive, affective, and/or psychomotor domains.” The study explored eight participants’ views on the nature of patient education in their early and current practices by examining their feelings, beliefs, and use of patient education, its role in their practices, as well as the perceptions of their roles as patient educators. Two semi-structured interviews were conducted with each of the participants. The transcribed interviews underwent detailed qualitative analysis to determine response trends and consensus. The key findings revealed that the participants felt that, while they were well prepared in their undergraduate curricula to diagnose and treat patients, they were not as well prepared to be effective patient educators when they entered practice. Early in their careers, they did not understand or appreciate patient education’s importance and value as a component of their practice. Over time, their beliefs and understanding of patient education changed and participants reported that with experience, they began to value patient education to a greater extent. Changing values reflected changing behaviours. For example, participants increased their time and efforts related to patient education with increased clinical experience. A variety of teaching aids were used with wall charts/posters, three dimensional anatomical models, printed materials and images from textbooks being among the most common. Most of the teaching described by the participants would be characterized as transmission with a one-way flow of information from the doctor to the patient. To a great extent, patient education involved speaking with individual patients. Participants reported encountering, throughout their careers, intrinsic and extrinsic barriers that interfered with the effectiveness of their patient education. The findings suggest that curricular planners for health care professional programs, and specifically for chiropractors, might consider developing content aimed at improving students’ patient education knowledge and skills.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.017 | 0.027 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.030 | 0.018 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".