MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2150077913 · doi:10.1002/msc.139

Exploring the healthcare journey of patients with rheumatoid arthritis: A mapping project – implications for practice

2008· article· en· W2150077913 on OpenAlex
Susan Oliver

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueMusculoskeletal Care · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicRheumatoid Arthritis Research and Therapies
Canadian institutionsArthritis Society
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineHealth careNegotiationNursingFamily medicineQualitative researchMedical education

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: Consumers of healthcare can reveal important insights into the personal challenges they experience when negotiating their health needs. The National Rheumatoid Arthritis Society (NRAS) wanted to explore the experiences of those with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) in order to understand the impact on the individual and on healthcare resources and benchmark care against published standards and guidelines. METHODS: A project was designed to explore the experiences of individuals with sero-positive RA who had been diagnosed for three years or less. Qualitative semi-structured interviews were used and combined with process mapping to explore the experiences of a purposeful sample of individuals with RA. The information generated was mapped and variances explored. Ethical approval was not required as the data were collected outside the National Health Service. RESULTS: Twenty-two participants' stories were mapped. Fifty per cent of participants sought a medical opinion within three weeks of symptom onset and the majority received a disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drug within six months from first presenting symptoms. Work-related issues were highlighted by 13 participants, and seven of these experienced job losses directly attributed to their diagnosis. CONCLUSIONS: This unique mapping approach used qualitative research and process mapping to compare patient experiences against recognized standards and guidelines. These twenty-two stories reveal important insights into the challenges experienced in negotiating these healthcare journeys and the impact upon the individual as a result of variances in standards of care received. The participants in this study were chiefly self-motivated, informed and articulate, and did not reflect the broad ethnic, social or cultural diversity in the UK. Limitations must also be considered in relation to perceptions and recall of participants over a three-year period, as these may have altered over time and illness experience.

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 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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.592
Threshold uncertainty score0.443

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.075
GPT teacher head0.324
Teacher spread0.249 · 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