Patient Preferences and Physician Practices for Laboratory Test Results Notification
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: This study assessed patient preferences and physician practices for laboratory test results notification in ambulatory care. METHODS: Patients aged 18 years or older (n=728) who were scheduled to see their primary care physician at 5 clinics were offered the opportunity to participate in an anonymous survey during their clinic visit. Their primary care physicians were also invited to participate in a separate online survey. Questions on both surveys included the current method of laboratory test results notification and satisfaction with the method. RESULTS: The majority of patients reported satisfaction with the current method of notification of normal results-the US mail-which was also the preferred method for notification of normal test results by both patients and physicians. Direct phone contact by the physician was the preferred method for notification of abnormal results by both patients (64%) and physicians (41%). Patients' preferred method of notification of normal results significantly agreed with the current method (P<.0001), whereas that of abnormal results did not (P=.52). CONCLUSIONS: Our findings indicate that patients and physicians both prefer the US mail for notification of normal laboratory test results and a direct phone call by the physician for notification of abnormal results.
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 | 0.004 | 0.021 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 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) | 0.003 | 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".