Patient Satisfaction with Services Provided by Multidisciplinary Anticoagulation Clinics
Bibliographic record
Abstract
STUDY OBJECTIVE: To assess patients' perception of care delivery by anticoagulation clinics (ACs) throughout Alberta, Canada. DESIGN: Prospective postal survey. SETTING: Therapy provision by an AC to ambulatory-based patients for a minimum of 3 months across the province. PATIENTS: A total of 1687 patients (67.9%) receiving warfarin therapy from 6 ACs for a minimum of 3 months responded. MEASUREMENT AND MAIN RESULTS: The 25-item survey had responses grouped into domains of patient preference, knowledge, and service delivery. A 5-point Likert scale enabled each response to be assigned a numerical value from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). Overall, the mean response for patient satisfaction was 4.54, indicating most patients were satisfied with the AC care they received. Among those who had received care outside of an AC, 70.4% preferred AC care compared with 18.4% for family physician care. Mean responses for knowledge and service delivery exceeded 4.0, demonstrating positive responses in favor of AC care. CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrates that most patients were greatly satisfied with AC care and preferred the care received from an AC to that provided by their family physician. Service delivery across Alberta is well perceived by 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 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".