Patients’ perspectives on information received in outpatient psychiatry
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this study is to develop a scale in order to determine the informational needs deemed most important by psychiatric outpatients, and to determine their level of satisfaction with information received. The 'Patients' Perspective on Information Questionnaire' (PPIQ) scale was created and given to a volunteer sample of 86 psychiatric outpatients. The Client satisfaction questionnaire (CSQ-8), assessing global satisfaction, was also completed to assess the convergent validity of the PPIQ-Satisfaction subscale. Internal consistency for the two PPIQ subscales (Information and Satisfaction) is excellent (alpha = 0.90 and 0.91). Convergent validity between the Satisfaction subscale and the CSQ is adequate (r = 0.5). The PPIQ reveals high importance ratings given to items such as 'side effects of medication' and 'confidentiality and access to chart'. Elevated satisfaction ratings are given to items from the conceptual category 'treatment information'. Dissatisfaction on the PPIQ is highest for components of 'information on service modality and organization'. The PPIQ appears to distinguish between information that is important to clients and their level of satisfaction with that information. Satisfaction on multiple components of information, such as treatment, service modality and organization, and clinical difficulties should be assessed to generate feedback to improve services.
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 | 0.003 | 0.018 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".