MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1768263695

Examining health equity through satisfaction and confidence of patients in primary healthcare in the Republic of Trinidad and Tobago.

2003· article· en· W1768263695 on OpenAlexaff

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Health Population and Nutrition · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicPatient Satisfaction in Healthcare
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHealth carePatient satisfactionFamily medicineEquity (law)MedicineInterviewPublic healthNursingData collectionEconomic growthPolitical science
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Surveys of patient satisfaction are widely used for identifying priorities and problems in healthcare reforms. The present study examined satisfaction and confidence of patients in public healthcare in Trinidad and Tobago. Data were gathered by interviewing a random sample (n = 280) of primary healthcare (PHC) patients. Level of patient satisfaction was high but not constant. Results of interviews showed that patients with a higher monthly income (p = 0.032) and patients who most recently used private medical care (p = 0.037) had lower levels of satisfaction with health services. Employment had an effect on satisfaction (p = 0.065), significant among patients who had recently accessed private medical care (p = 0.039). Patients using PHC clinics preferred private care to public care. Confidence in public care decreased with increasing complexity of the medical condition. These preliminary results support continued efforts in health-sector reforms and call for the enhancement of data on satisfaction through more comprehensive qualitative data-collection methods.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.080
Threshold uncertainty score0.159

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.191
GPT teacher head0.457
Teacher spread0.266 · 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 designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations11
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Health Population and NutritionSame topicPatient Satisfaction in HealthcareFrench-language works237,207