“Because everything changes that day; you don't do the routine”: Alterations and activities chronically ill women undertake on days with health care provider appointments
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
OBJECTIVES: Research points to the importance of interactions with health care providers for chronically ill patients. Meanwhile, we know little about how visits to providers' offices are accommodated in these patients' lives. This analysis identifies the full scope of routine alterations and preparatory activities that require chronically will women's time and energy specifically on appointment days. METHODS: 55 semi-structured interviews were conducted with women with fibromyalgia syndrome living in Ontario, Canada. Interviews were transcribed verbatim and analyzed using the constant-comparative technique. RESULTS: Two trajectories are identified: (1) alterations to daily routines on appointment days; and (2) activities to prepare for the provider-patient interaction. Factors such as wanting to minimize symptom exacerbation, desires to come across as informed patients, limited time afforded to interactions, and access to transportation explain why these particular routine alterations and preparatory activities were undertaken. DISCUSSION: Findings demonstrate that the health care provider-patient interaction does not start or end in the space of the provider's office but is, rather, an event that is part of a larger process primarily focused on its successful negotiation. This suggests that the boundaries of the appointment need to be reconsidered, which holds implications for appointment-focused interventions aimed at chronically ill patients.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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