“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
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.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".