Are Primary Healthcare Organizational Attributes Associated with Patient Self-Efficacy for Managing Chronic Disease?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Our objective was to explore how individual and primary healthcare (PHC) organizational attributes influence patients' ability in chronic illness self-management. We conducted a cohort study, recruiting 776 adults with chronic disease from 33 PHC settings in the province of Quebec. Organizational data on the PHC clinics were obtained from a prior study. Participants were interviewed at baseline, 6 and 12 months, responding to questionnaires on self-efficacy, health status, socio-demographics, healthcare use and experience of care. Multilevel modelling showed that 52.5% of the variance in self-efficacy occurs at the level of the individual and 4.0% at the organizational level. Controlling for diagnosis, patient factors associated with self-efficacy were self-rated health (B coeff 0.76: CI 0.60; 0.92), concurrent depression (B coeff -1.41: CI 1.96; -0.86) and satisfaction with care (B coeff 0.27: CI 0.15; 0.39). None of the organizational attributes was significantly associated with self-efficacy after adjusting for lower-level variables. Patients generally reported receiving little self-management teaching across organizations.
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 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".