Communication Barriers Perceived by Nurses and Patients
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
Communication, as a key element in providing high-quality health care services, leads to patient satisfaction and health. The present Cross sectional, descriptive analytic study was conducted on 70 nurses and 50 patients in two hospitals affiliated to Alborz University of Medical Sciences, in 2012. Two separate questionnaires were used for nurses and patients, and the reliability and validity of the questionnaires were assessed. In both groups of nurses and patients, nurse-related factors (mean scores of 2.45 and 2.15, respectively) and common factors between nurses and patients (mean scores of 1.85 and 1.96, respectively) were considered the most and least significant factors, respectively. Also, a significant difference was observed between the mean scores of nurses and patients regarding patient-related (p=0.001), nurse-related (p=0.012), and environmental factors (p=0.019). Despite the attention of nurses and patients to communication, there are some barriers, which can be removed through raising the awareness of nurses and patients along with creating a desirable environment. We recommend that nurses be effectively trained in communication skills and be encouraged by constant monitoring of the obtained skills.
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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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