Development of the Intersectoral Care Reported by Patients Survey for Primary and Oral Healthcare
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Introduction: Oral and general health are closely related, and many oral and chronic-systemic diseases have the same risk factors. However, in most countries dental and general health care systems are separated. Integration of care for patients with closely related, multiple conditions is therefore important to ensure they receive the best quality of care. We aimed to develop a short and easy-to-understand survey to be used by patients to assess integration of dental and primary health care through their perceptions. Methods: This study used both qualitative and quantitative methods. A modified online Delphi method was used for development of the survey. A panel consisting of seven experts assessed the survey in three rounds. The experts were based in the United States, Germany and the Netherlands and had different professional backgrounds, including general practice and dentistry. The initial framework and set of proposed questions were based on a previous survey with a similar focus. During two discussion rounds and one online round the framework and the questions were assessed and modified by the experts. The survey was then assessed for understandability among 18 patients and thereafter piloted among 199 patients. Results: The final questionnaire derived from the consensus procedure contains thirteen questions which address the following five domains: patients' wishes, expectations, awareness and concerns regarding communication between health care providers; patients' perception of health care providers' knowledge; health care provider-patient communication about health status; utilization of health care; and self-rated health. The consensus procedure also yielded improvements in the understandability of survey items: one survey item was changed from a multiple-choice question into a yes/no question, answer options were added to three other survey items, four survey items were slightly changed in wording, and five items remained unchanged. Conclusion: We developed the short, easy-to-understand Integrated Care Reported by Patients Survey to assess integration of dental and primary health care as perceived by patients. In the future, the developed survey is intended to be tested for validity and translated to other languages. The survey provides opportunities for usage in research and as a tool in quality improvement and feedback systems for health care providers.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,012 | 0,023 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,003 | 0,002 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,003 | 0,001 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».