Seniors’ perspectives on care: a case study of the Alex Seniors health clinic, Calgary
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Primary care initiatives face an imperative to not only reduce barriers to care for their patients but also to uniquely accommodate the complex needs of at-risk patient populations. Patient-centered multidisciplinary care team models for primary care, like the Alex Seniors Clinic, are one approach for providing comprehensive care for marginalized seniors. The purpose of this qualitative study was to explore patient perspectives on the responsiveness of the Alex Seniors Clinic to their stated health needs. RESULTS: Themes reflected participants' perspectives on factors impacting their health needs as vulnerable seniors as well as on the measures that the Alex Seniors Clinic has taken to meet those needs. Factors impacting health included: the nature of their relationships to the physical environment in which they lived, the nature of the relationships they had to others in that environment, and independence and autonomy. Participants identified accessibility, respect and support, and advocacy as the ways in which the clinic was working to address those health needs. CONCLUSIONS: While respect and support, as well as advocacy, effectively addressed some patient needs, participants felt that accessibility problems continue to be health-related barriers for clinic patients. This may be due to the fact that issues of accessibility reflect larger community and social problems. Nevertheless, it is only through engaging the patient community for input on clinic approaches that an understanding can be gained of how closely a clinic's care goals are currently aligning with patient perspectives of the care and services they receive.
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 | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.020 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| 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".