MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2142303319 · doi:10.5750/ejpch.v2i4.821

Patient-centred care: what consumer health organisations say and do

2014· article· en· W2142303319 on OpenAlexaff
Fiona Kelly, Adem Sav, Sara S. McMillan, Michelle A. King, Jennifer A. Whitty, Amanda Wheeler

Bibliographic record

VenueEuropean Journal for Person Centered Healthcare · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicPatient-Provider Communication in Healthcare
Canadian institutionsInstitute of Health Economics
FundersQueensland GovernmentAustralian GovernmentGriffith UniversityQueensland Health
KeywordsHealth carePaternalismCLARITYPublic relationsNursingHealth literacyMedicinePsychologyPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Concepts like patient-centered care and shared decision making are increasingly prominent topics in discourse on quality in healthcare with the growing prevalence of chronic disease. Although patient-centered care has been touted as a way forward, it remains an ambiguous concept with variable application in healthcare. Greater clarity is needed around the concept of patient-centered care alongside a stronger knowledge base on the perspectives of health consumers with complex needs and service providers, including those outside the formal healthcare system, such as consumer health organizations (CHO). This study explored CHO patient-centered policy, related practice, and organizational views on the potential value of pharmacy delivered patient-centered care. In-depth interviews were conducted with 15 organizational representatives until no new themes emerged. Data were concurrently thematically analyzed by three researchers from a public health or pharmacy background. Participants called for a paradigm shift away from the paternalistic biomedical model to shared power that values consumer choice and promotes active engagement in health. There was disparity between articulation of policy and practice, with CHOs often more patient-centered than they claimed to be. Participants described a wealth of innovative and often patient-centered services, and ascribed under-utilization of these resources to limited awareness. Selected CHOs adopted strategies that health professionals can learn from, such as combining multiple elements of patient-centered care and seeking to build consumer capacity to self-manage. Health professional education, current infrastructure and remuneration were cited as barriers to more widespread delivery of patient-centered care. However, participants suggested creative solutions to address selected factors, some specific to pharmacy. Both pharmacy and CHOs are under-utilized healthcare resources and there is potential for synergy between these sectors to promote patient-centered care. Pharmacy could benefit from insight into the CHO perspective of patient-centered care and also increase utilization of CHO services through direct referral.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.823
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0060.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.221
GPT teacher head0.382
Teacher spread0.161 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations2
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEuropean Journal for Person Centered HealthcareSame topicPatient-Provider Communication in HealthcareFrench-language works237,207