Patient–Provider Rapport in the Health Care of People Who Inject Drugs
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Little research has described determinants and consequences of patient–provider rapport among people who inject drugs (PWIDs). This mixed-method study (a) qualitatively described facilitators, barriers, and consequences to rapport development between PWIDs and their health care providers and (b) quantitatively tested the hypothesis that quality of rapport is associated with positive patterns of service use. Two exploratory focus groups with PWIDs and care providers were conducted. Subsequently, 89 PWIDs completed a survey interview; of those, eight completed a follow-up qualitative interview. Qualitative results indicated that rapport is influenced by drug-related behaviors, addiction severity, provider expertise, patient-centered care, and perceived discrimination and that rapport then influences patient compliance, timing of care, and criminal activity. Quantitative results indicated that rapport predicted PWID satisfaction with care as well as frequency and timing of emergency department presentations. Results suggest that PWID–provider rapport has several unique determinants and is associated with positive health care outcomes.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 it