Primary care in Bosnia and Herzegovina. Health care and health status in general practice ambulatory care centres.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To assess the health care and health status of patients attending primary care clinics in Bosnia and Herzegovina. DESIGN: Assisted administration patient survey. SETTING: Two ambulatory care clinics (ambulantas) in each of three cities in Bosnia and Herzegovina: Tuzla, Mostar, and Banja Luka. PARTICIPANTS: Patients attending the ambulantas during a 1-week period in March 1999; 885 answered questionnaires. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Each patient listed demographic characteristics and answered questions on satisfaction with health care and with the physical and financial accessibility of health care services and medications. A validated health status questionnaire (EuroQoL), previously used in parts of the former Yugoslavia, was administered. RESULTS: Only 22% of patients were employed; 57% could not pay the nominal fee to see a physician; 71% walked to the clinic; mean distance from patients' homes to the clinics was 2.3 km; 63% could not get the medications prescribed (in 85% of cases because of cost, not availability); 80% to 90% of answers to satisfaction questions suggested high satisfaction with the care patients received from their doctors; 67% of the time patients were referred to a specialist by general practitioners; 33% had problems walking; 17% had problems with self-care; 36% had problems with usual daily activities; 72% had at least some pain or discomfort; and 62% described at least some anxiety or depression. The three cities showed significant differences; patients in Tuzla generally had lower health status and more problems with health care. CONCLUSION: Unemployment and financial considerations reduced health care access in Bosnia and Herzegovina. While only one third of patients had physical difficulties, two thirds had emotional problems or pain. Satisfaction with physicians' care was high.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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".