Does the Planetree Patient-Centered Approach to Care Pay Off?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Although the Planetree patient-centered approach to care is being implemented in many institutions around the world, its impact is still the subject of some debate. On the one hand, it is viewed as the most cost-effective way to provide care and create a positive work environment that reduces staff burnout. On the other hand, it is argued that it requires higher staffing ratios and a substantial infusion of financial resources and is time consuming, which in turn results in more work. The present study addresses the economic agenda of the Planetree patient-centered approach to care and has been designed to answer the following question: do the advantages of the Planetree patient-centered approach outweigh its costs? This question is of considerable interest for health care administrators and managers because the relevant authorities the world over have limited resources to allocate to health care organizations. Using a trend analysis approach to cost-benefit in a rehabilitation center, this study shows that the revenues the model generates are greater than the costs of implementing it. Fewer grievances and vacant positions, an improved employee retention rate, a better working atmosphere, and a high level of employee satisfaction (higher than in similar establishments) were also noted.
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 | 0.006 | 0.020 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 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".