State of IS Integration in the Context of Patient-Centered Care
Bibliographic record
Abstract
For more than a decade, healthcare reform has emphasized coordinated “patient-centered care”. To that end, policymakers have invested in integration of healthcare providers’ information flows. Research has studied healthcare providers’ information needs but overlooked communicative exchanges among participants in coordinating treatment plan decisions. Consequently, although medical literature asserts that patients should depend on information exchange with healthcare providers to enable participation in treatment plan decisions, the assertion has not been tested. In this paper, the authors conduct an empirical study to elucidate the structure of actors’ communications in support of their information dependencies. The findings illustrate that although patients are well connected through personal contact with healthcare providers, patients are disenfranchised from integrated healthcare information systems (IS) and the potential of IS to support patients’ participation in coordinated “patient-centered care” decisions. Furthermore, knowledge asymmetry between patients and healthcare providers should be considered in the selection and design of healthcare IS.
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 | 0.025 | 0.023 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.020 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.025 | 0.027 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.010 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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".