MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W1224593912 · doi:10.26443/ijwpc.v1i1.25

Restoring Core Values: An International Charter for Human Values in Healthcare

2014· article· en· W1224593912 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Elizabeth A. Rider, Ming‐Jung Ho, William T. Branch, Diana Slade, Suzanne Kurtz, Jack Pun

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Whole Person Care · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicEthics in medical practice
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHealth careCharterDelphi methodExcellenceTeamworkCompassionDelphiHuman rightsPsychologyMedical educationMedicineNursingSociologyPolitical scienceComputer scienceLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: The human dimensions of healthcare are fundamental to the practice of compassionate, safe, and ethical relationship-centered care. Attending to the human dimensions improves patient and clinician satisfaction, outcomes and quality of care; however, these dimensions have not received the emphasis necessary to make them central to every healthcare encounter. We established an international collaborative effort to identify and promote the human dimensions of care.Objectives: a) To describe work to date on the International Charter for Human Values in Healthcare; b) To discuss translation of the Charter’s universal values into education, research, and practice.Methods: An international working group of expert educators, clinicians, linguists, and researchers identified initial values that should be present in every healthcare interaction. The working group and four additional groups -- National Academies of Practice (NAP) USA, International Conference on Communication in Healthcare, Interprofessional Patient-Centered Care Conference, American Academy on Communication in Healthcare Forum -- identified values for all healthcare interactions and prioritized top values. The NAP group also prioritized top values for interprofessional interactions. Additional data was gathered via a Delphi process and 2 focus groups of Harvard Macy Institute scholars and faculty.Results: Through iterative content analyses and consensus, we identified 5 categories of core human values that should be present in every healthcare interaction: Capacity for Compassion, Respect for Persons, Commitment to Integrity and Ethical Practice, Commitment to Excellence, and Justice in Healthcare. Through further consensus and Delphi methodology, we identified values within each category.Conclusions: The International Charter for Human Values in Healthcare [1] is a cooperative effort to restore core human values to healthcare around the world. Major healthcare and education partners have joined this international effort. We are working to develop methods to translate the Charter’s universal values into education (teaching, assessment, curricula), research and practice.ReferenceThe International Charter for Human Values in Healthcare. http://charterforhealthcarevalues.org

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.096
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.075
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.096
Threshold uncertainty score0.510

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0960.075
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0050.004
Science and technology studies0.0090.034
Scholarly communication0.0150.013
Open science0.0020.012
Research integrity0.0040.014
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.211
GPT teacher head0.557
Teacher spread0.347 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2014
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Whole Person Care→Same topicEthics in medical practice→French-language works237,207→