THE PERCEPTION OF THE CONCEPT OF PATIENT RIGHTS IN TURKEY. EXAMPLES FROM THE PRESS
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The question of patient rights, which has appeared as a significant agenda item in the last quarter of the 20th century, has assumed a legal dimension with the “Patient Rights Regulation” published in Turkey in 1998. In this process, it is important how patient rights are perceived among the public and to what extent they are reflected to practice in the delivery of health care services. The role of the media is of utmost importance with respect to the promotion and discussion of patient rights and compliance to them in the society. In this article, the aim is to examine how patient rights are perceived and conveyed in the media by way of compiling and examining such news in national newspapers. It is thought that data collected in this way will give an opinion about the level of prevalence of the concept. In the scope of the study, 1941 news reports were compiled from newspapers printed between 1998 and 2007. It has been found that news on the topic has displayed a linear increase in years, and as of 2004 at least one incident related to the topic has been printed each day. Although the number of news reports are higher, the increase in the number of columns dedicated to the issue also draws attention. In one third of these new reports, the photographs of the relevant people are used and all photographs have been given without any restrictions. The way of conveying news about patient rights in the media is a very sensitive issue and it is observed that there are serious problems with regard to respect for the right to privacy and confidentiality. As can be seen from the selected news stories, the infringement of individual rights for the sake of featuring a news report shows that the media can also violate patient rights in addition to its support to the issue. With regard to content, almost half the news reports are about the right to health care and respect for private life and confidentiality, news about informed consent and other rights are very few. This situation leads us to think that there are problems with regard to how patient rights are perceived in the society in addition to the quality and accessibility of health care services.
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 | 0.006 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.010 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| 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".