Avaliação do usuário sobre o atendimento oftalmológico oferecido pelo SUS em um centro urbano no sul do Brasil
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The user's evaluation is an important component of the quality of the health services. The goal of the present study was to evaluate the user's satisfaction with the ophthalmologic service provided by an accredited service of the Brazilian Unified Health System (SUS) in an urban center of the South of Brazil. It is a transversal study in which a questionnaire was applied about the user's socioeconomic and demographic profile, questions related to the quality of the service and suggestions and/or complaints regarding to the attendance and the service. The sample was calculated in the program EPINFO version 6.0, it had as its base 1200 monthly services, in a total of 355 users. The results showed that 77.1% of the users were satisfied with the medical service. However, 75.4% pointed deficiencies related to the time they had to wait in the place, to the duration of the consultation and at the interpersonal relationship with doctor and other attendants. It was verified that 36.3% considered the ophthalmologic service offered by SUS as terrible and regular. This way, it is fundamental to rethink the professional practices and to intervene on the form of organization of this service, seeking its improvement and the user's satisfaction.
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 | 0.003 | 0.013 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 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".