Understanding the Meaning of Satisfaction With Treatment Outcome
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Although satisfying patients is an important goal in health care, what is meant by satisfaction in relation to treatment outcome is not clear. The objective of this study was to explore patients' perspectives on the meaning of satisfaction with treatment outcome. DESIGN: We conducted a qualitative exploratory study. SETTING: This study was conducted at an adult tertiary care hospital. PATIENTS: Individuals who had undergone elective hand surgery were included in this study. INTERVENTION: In-depth, open-ended interviews in which 31 participants described their experience of a hand condition, how they evaluated the outcome of surgical interventions, and what it meant to be satisfied or dissatisfied with these outcomes were examined. ANALYSIS: : Interview transcripts were analyzed using Gadow's conceptualization of embodiment states: "object body" (disunity between the affected hand and the self) or "cultivated immediacy" (harmony between the hand and the self). RESULTS: Eight of 9 dissatisfied individuals were categorized as "object body" and 15 of 19 satisfied individuals were in, or in transition to, "cultivated immediacy". These states fluctuated and were also dependent on context (eg, social setting) and time since surgery. CONCLUSION: In relation to the outcome of hand surgery, satisfaction was experienced as a relative lack of tension between the patient's sense of self and the affected hand (ie, satisfaction was having a hand that could be lived with unself-consciously). Emotional and social effects of interventions and the influence of context should be considered in future measures of satisfaction with treatment outcome. Finally, interventions directed toward facilitating patients' experience of body-self unity could promote satisfaction with treatment outcome.
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 | 0.014 | 0.025 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".