Patient Satisfaction With the Family Physician Program in Sabzevar, Iran
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Patient satisfaction with the family physician program is an important factor for more favorable treatment results. Evaluation of patient satisfaction improves the services and approximates them to patient's preferences. The family physician program has been executed since late March, 2005 in Iran. This study aimed to measure patient satisfaction with family physician services and determines factors affecting the level of satisfaction in order to propose appropriate suggestions for providing medical services based on patients' expectations. METHODS: Forty-one centers provide healthcare services in rural and urban areas. The participants in this study comprised 1263 people. The data were collected by an inventory with 11 items about demographic specifications, waiting time and the importance of physician's sex and 40 items for assessing the level of patient satisfaction. RESULTS: A total of 1199 patients participated in the current study, 72.1% of them were female and 19.6% waited 10-20 minutes for receiving services. About 55.72% of the participants chose high and very high for the items of the inventory. Total satisfaction with the family physician program decreased with age (p-value=0.029).Moreover, total satisfaction did not show any significant differences in different groups in terms of sex, place of residence, education level and marital status. Also family physicians' sex did not affect patient satisfaction significantly. Based on results of regression model, an increase in patients' age by one year decreased their satisfaction by 0.12 and level of satisfaction in rural patients was lower than that in urban patients by 7.93. CONCLUSIONS: The level of patient satisfaction with family physician services was moderate, which mostly arose from the components of the family physician program and services such as the waiting time, costs, welfare facilities, accessibility and the service-providing team rather than patients' personal characteristics.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.003 | 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".