MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2059289951 · doi:10.12927/hcq.2008.19656

"It's Safe to Ask": Promoting Patient Safety through Health Literacy

2008· article· en· W2059289951 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Laurie Thompson

Bibliographic record

VenueHealthcare Quarterly · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicHealth Literacy and Information Accessibility
Canadian institutionsSt. Boniface Hospital
FundersWinnipeg FoundationManitoba Medical Service FoundationAstraZeneca
KeywordsAsk priceListing (finance)Health literacyPsychological interventionHealth careLiteracyPatient safetyNursingMedicinePublic relationsPhase (matter)Medical educationPsychologyBusinessPolitical sciencePedagogy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Manitoba Institute for Patient Safety launched "It's Safe to Ask" in January 2007. The communication and health literacy initiative is aimed at Manitoba's vulnerable populations and their primary care providers. Phase 1 includes a poster and brochure for patients and a toolkit for providers/organizations, pilot tested in six sites in Manitoba. Posters will serve as a symbol that dialogue is encouraged. Tools, available in 15 languages, provide patients and family members with three key questions to ask in healthcare interactions, tips on how to ask questions, and room for notes and listing of medications. The initiative will promote involvement in healthcare by patients, stronger communication between patient and provider, and reduction of risk for adverse events. "It's Safe to Ask" has been implemented in over 65 sites across Manitoba. A formal evaluation is underway. Phase 2 and 3 will enhance key tools and include interventions with specific populations.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.011
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.021
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.034
Threshold uncertainty score0.068

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0110.021
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0030.002
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0010.005
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.060
GPT teacher head0.443
Teacher spread0.382 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreCommentary

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".

Quick stats

Citations16
Published2008
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHealthcare QuarterlySame topicHealth Literacy and Information AccessibilityFrench-language works237,207