Patients' perceptions of individualized care: evaluating psychometric properties and results of the individualized care scale.
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Health-care organizations aim to provide patient-centred care, yet measurement of this aspect of care quality remains a challenge.This cross-sectional study investigated the reliability and validity of the bipartite Individualized Care Scale (ICSA, ICS-B) in a Canadian hip and knee arthroplasty population. Internal consistency of the ICS-A and ICS-B was high; however, factorial validity was not fully supported. Twenty-five percent of participants provided additional open-ended comments to describe individual perceptions, needs, and suggestions, noting that the Likert-scale approach required them to aggregate their feedback about rather than share their perceptions of individual nurses.The findings indicate that it is important to patients to be able to share their individual stories when evaluating nursing care. Future qualitative studies should examine the nurse perspective on the provision of patient-centred care, including investigation of systems and process-related features that foster or hinder more individualized care.
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.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it