To Tell or Not to Tell? Professional and Lay Perspectives on the Disclosure of Personal Health Information in Community-Based Dementia Care
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
Developments in information technology and the ongoing restructuring of health services to increase provision in community settings militate in favour of a streamlining of communications and the exchange of information about patients among health and social care providers. Yet the principles of confidentiality and privacy appear to inhibit this process. In order to explore the practical, ethical, and legal imperatives attendant upon personal health information exchange, we conducted a series of interviews with professional care providers, persons with early-stage dementia, and their family caregivers. The findings indicate some degree of discordance. Professionals reported valuing disclosure both to colleagues and family caregivers on the basis of its being in the patients' best interests. Patients also valued inter-professional exchange, but sought strong control over disclosure to family members. Family caregivers valued being kept informed of the patient's condition, even without the latter's consent. Implications for research and policy are discussed.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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