MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Improving Behavioral Health Satisfaction Assessment: Measuring Patients' Perceptions

2006· article· en· W1965950139 on OpenAlexaff
Pamela A. Carroll-Solomon, Diane Denny, Trenya Garner, Judy Aitkenhead, Sheryl Brown, Mary Anne Foley, Daniel H. van Leeuwen

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal for Healthcare Quality · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicReligion, Spirituality, and Psychology
Canadian institutionsSt. Peter's HospitalProvidence Health Care
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRanking (information retrieval)PerceptionGovernment (linguistics)Health carePatient satisfactionOrder (exchange)PsychologyService (business)Applied psychologyFocus groupInstitutionKey (lock)Public relationsMedicineNursingComputer scienceBusinessMarketingPolitical scienceComputer security

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In order to focus on and improve key aspects of patient satisfaction in its behavioral health programs, Catholic Health East (CHE) enhanced its measurement methodology. In an effort to be consistent with the federal government's movement from measuring patient advocacy programs to measuring patients' perceptions, CHE transitioned to behavior-based questions. These questions give clear targets for program goals and initiatives by objectively measuring whether certain events and desired staff behaviors occurred during treatment, rather than subjectively ranking attributes of institution-defined service. Through this change in approach, CHE may better align its care and services with patients' wants and needs, as illustrated by four case examples.

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)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.009
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 score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.035

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.129
GPT teacher head0.498
Teacher spread0.369 · 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

Citations0
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal for Healthcare QualitySame topicReligion, Spirituality, and PsychologyFrench-language works237,207