Discussion of Patient-Centered Care in Health Care Organizations
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
The tradition of inherent knowledge and power of health care providers stands in stark contrast to the principles of self-determination and patient participation in patient-centered care. At the organizational level, patient-centered care is a merging of patient education, self-care, and evidence-based models of practice and consists of 4 broad domains of intervention including communication, partnerships, health promotion, and physical care. As a result of the unexamined discourse of knowledge and power in health care, the possibilities of patient-centered care have not been fully achieved. In this article, we used a critical social theory lens to examine the discursive influence of power upon the integration of patient-centered care into health care organizations. We begin with an overview of patient-centered care, followed by a discussion of the various ways that it has been introduced into health care organizations. We proceed by deconstructing the inherent power and knowledge of health care providers and shed light on how these long-standing traditions have impeded the integration of patient-centered care. We conclude with a discussion of viable solutions that can be used to implement patient-centered care into health care organizations. This article presents a perspective through which the integration of patient-centered care into health organizations can be examined.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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