MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2081712818 · doi:10.5539/gjhs.v5n5p193

Use of Hospital Appointment Registration Systems in China: A Survey Study

2013· article· en· W2081712818 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.

venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueGlobal Journal of Health Science · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicHealthcare Operations and Scheduling Optimization
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Natural Science Foundation of China
KeywordsResidenceMedicineFamily medicineService (business)ChinaPatient registrationTelephone surveyMedical emergencyDemography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Hospitals have expressed no knowledge of patients' opinions regarding diversified appointment registration systems, despite efforts to develop novel appointment registration systems that assist patients and increase hospital efficiency. Therefore, the aim of this study was to investigate the use of diversified appointment registration systems and explore the factors influencing patients' registration system choices. METHODS: A survey study using a questionnaire was conducted in West China Hospital in February 2012. Outpatients were randomly selected from different hospital departments and the questionnaire was distributed and collected on-site. RESULTS: Data from 1,009 patients were available for analysis. Of these, 63.4% used appointment systems to register while others chose a traditional queuing method to register. 114 telephone (30.4%) and on-site (22.9%) appointments were made, whereas other systems were less used by patients. Between the non-appointment and appointment groups there were significant differences in gender, educational degree, and residence location (P < 0.05), but no significant difference in age (P > 0.05). While the clinical appointment system had the greatest number of appointment days (25.75), the bank's self-service terminal appointment had the least number of appointment days (5.05). Leaflets sent from the hospital (50.70%) and the recommendations of friends or families (40.77%) were the two main ways of knowing about the appointment registration systems. With the exception of those who felt no need to make an appointment (30.12%), not having the capability to use the appointment systems (24.10%) and the lack of a registered health card (34.53%) were the two main reasons for not using appointment registration systems. CONCLUSIONS: Convenience was a major motivation for patients' use of appointment registration systems. Personal knowledge and capability were the two important factors that influenced patients' appointment system choices. Hospitals must improve the design and promotion of appointment registration systems to better facilitate their use.

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)0.009
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.041
Threshold uncertainty score0.964

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0090.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.110
GPT teacher head0.441
Teacher spread0.330 · 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