Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIM: The aim of this paper is to present a feminist critique of the concept of patient satisfaction. BACKGROUND: Fiscal restraint, health care restructuring, shifting demographics, biomedical technological advances, and a significant shortage of health care professionals are stretching health care systems across North America to the breaking point. A simultaneous focus on consumerism and health service accountability is placing additional pressure on the system. The concept of patient satisfaction, with roots in the consumer movement of the 1960s, has both practical and political relevance in the current health care system and is commonly used to guide research related to consumer experiences of health care. Because the quality of health care encounters may lead to treatment-seeking delays, patient satisfaction research may be an effective vehicle for addressing this public health issue. However, there is wide agreement that patient satisfaction is an under-theorized concept. Using current conceptualizations of patient satisfaction, we end up all too often producing a checklist approach to 'achieving' patient satisfaction, rather than developing an understanding of the larger issues underlying individual experiences of health care. We focus on the symptoms rather than the problems. DISCUSSION: Without further theoretical refinement, the results of research into patient satisfaction are of limited use. To push forward theoretical development we might apply a variety of theoretical lenses to the analysis of both the concept and the results of patient satisfaction research. Feminism, in particular, offers a perspective that may provoke further refinement of patient satisfaction as a concept. CONCLUSIONS: Without a deeper understanding of the values and beliefs (or the worldview) that informs our approaches to researching patient satisfaction, researchers will be reacting to the most obvious indicators and failing to address the underlying issues related to individual experiences of health care.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.013 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.026 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".