Satisfaction with Primary Health Care in Patients with Upper Respiratory Tract Infection: A Three-Level Approach
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Upper respiratory tract infections (URTI) are common conditions for which individuals seek health care. The present study analyzes the satisfaction of URTI patients with general practitioners offering conventional treatment, alternative treatment, or a combination of both. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients' satisfaction with care was evaluated based on concepts of structure, process and outcome. Data were drawn from a nationwide cross-sectional survey, conducted in Switzerland, which evaluated conventional (COM) and complementary and/or alternative medicine (CAM). Participating physicians provided information about care structure. A questionnaire filled in by doctors and patients in parallel during the first visit provided information about the process of care (e.g. patients' general health, duration and severity of symptoms, co-morbid conditions, diagnostic/therapeutic procedures and consultation time). One month later, patients completed a second questionnaire on their subjective disease- and treatment-related health status, beliefs and fulfillment of expectations, and treatment effects (outcome). RESULTS: Structural and procedural differences were found. The most striking was the significantly longer consultation time with CAM physicians. Patients' satisfaction as an outcome variable, however, did not differ between the different treatment approaches. CONCLUSIONS: General practitioners, offering a variety of treatments, accommodate an important demand in primary health care. Regardless of differences in structure and procedure of the practice types, patients perceive equal benefits of treatment after one month. Nonetheless, possible long-term effects of longer consultations in CAM practices, such as a possibly more stable long-term amelioration of health, have to be carefully evaluated in future studies with the same study design.
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 | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".