Patient Satisfaction Among Spanish-Speaking Patients in a Public Health Setting
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Despite the growing literature on health care quality, few patient satisfaction studies have focused upon the public health setting; where many Hispanic patients receive care. The purpose of this study was to examine the differences in satisfaction between English and Spanish-speaking patients in a local health department clinical setting. We conducted a paper-based satisfaction survey of patients that visited any of the seven Jefferson County Department of Health primary care centers from March 19 to April 19, 2008. Using Chi-squared analyses we found 25% of the Spanish-speaking patients reported regularly having problems getting an appointment compared to 16.8% among English-speakers (p < .001). Results of logistic regression analyses indicated that, despite the availability of interpreters at all JCDH primary care centers, differences in satisfaction existed between Spanish and English speaking patients controlling for center location, purpose of visit, and time spent waiting. Specifically, Spanish speaking patients were more likely to report problems getting an appointment and less likely to report having their medical problems resolved when leaving their visit as compared to those who spoke English. Findings presented herein may provide insight regarding the quality of care received, specifically regarding patient satisfaction in the public health setting.
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 | 0.010 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| 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".