MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2076085592 · doi:10.3109/13561820.2013.862519

Patient-centered care: clarification of its specific elements to facilitate interprofessional care

2013· review· en· W2076085592 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Interprofessional Care · 2013
Typereview
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicPatient-Provider Communication in Healthcare
Canadian institutionsYork University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsOperationalizationConceptualizationVariety (cybernetics)Health careComponent (thermodynamics)PsychologyIntervention (counseling)NursingMedicineProcess managementComputer sciencePolitical scienceEpistemology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Patient-centered care (PCC) has been described as a vague concept, which yields an inconsistent operationalization and implementation of this approach to care. This integrative review of the literature, guided by the conceptualization of PCC as a complex intervention, aimed to identify the specific elements of PCC. Conceptual, empirical and clinical literature in different health professions (n = 178 articles) was critically analyzed. Comparing and contrasting the definitions and descriptions of PCC revealed three specific elements that were represented in these components: holistic, collaborative and responsive care. Activities that constitute each component were specified. The implementation of PCC components is facilitated by a non-specific element: the therapeutic relationship. The results inform the development of protocols that can be used to promote the fidelity with which PCC is delivered by different professionals in a variety of healthcare settings.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Research integrity, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesResearch integrity, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.765
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.002
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0030.002
Research integrity0.0020.006
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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 head0.331
GPT teacher head0.474
Teacher spread0.143 · 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