MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2011799915 · doi:10.1097/mlr.0000000000000021

Satisfaction With Health Care Providers and Preventive Care Adherence

2013· article· en· W2011799915 on OpenAlexaff
Anthony Jerant, Joshua J. Fenton, Klea D. Bertakis, Peter Franks

Bibliographic record

VenueMedical Care · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicPatient Satisfaction in Healthcare
Canadian institutionsCentre for Family Medicine
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineFamily medicineCross-sectional studyOdds ratioCancer screeningHealth careLogistic regressionPatient satisfactionProspective cohort studyCancerNursingInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Prior studies demonstrating associations between patient satisfaction with health care providers and preventive adherence were cross-sectional, limiting causal inferences. In cross-sectional and prospective analyses, we explored 3 hypotheses previously invoked to explain associations between satisfaction with providers and preventive adherence: (1) receiving preventive care increases satisfaction; (2) enhancing satisfaction increases preventive care; (3) satisfaction and adherence reflect patient characteristics, incompletely adjusted for in previous studies. METHODS: We conducted 3 sets of logistic regression analyses employing 2000-2010 Medical Expenditure Panel Survey data: 1 cross-sectional and 2 prospective (baseline preventive care/follow-up year satisfaction, and baseline satisfaction/follow-up year preventive care), each set cumulatively adjusting for patient demographics, socioeconomics, morbidity, health care access, and medical skepticism. Consumer Assessment of Health Plans Survey items measured satisfaction with care from all providers in the preceding year. Preventive care examined included influenza vaccination and colorectal cancer, Papanicolaou, mammography, and prostate-specific antigen screening. RESULTS: In cross-sectional analyses adjusted for demographics (N = 74,792), highest (vs. lowest) quartile satisfaction was associated with preventive adherence [adjusted odds ratios (95% confidence interval)]: influenza vaccination 1.14 (1.07, 1.22); colorectal cancer screening 1.08 (0.99, 1.18); Papanicolaou screening 1.14 (1.04, 1.24); mammography screening 1.20 (1.11, 1.31); prostate-specific antigen screening 1.38 (1.25, 1.52). With full adjustment, associations of satisfaction with adherence were substantially attenuated, eliminated, or reversed. Prospective analyses yielded findings similar to the cross-sectional analyses. CONCLUSIONS: Cross-sectional and prospective associations between satisfaction with providers and preventive care adherence were similarly explained by patient characteristics. The findings question previously hypothesized causal relationships between satisfaction and preventive adherence.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.233
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.034
GPT teacher head0.403
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 teacher head, not a consensus.

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

Citations26
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMedical CareSame topicPatient Satisfaction in HealthcareFrench-language works237,207