Knowledge and attitude of Saudi health professions’ students regarding patient’s bill of rights
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Patient's rights are worldwide considerations. Saudi Patient's Bill of Rights (PBR) which was established in 2006 contained 12 items. Lack of knowledge regarding the Saudi PBR limits its implementation in health facilities. This study aimed to investigate the knowledge of health professions' students at College of Applied Medical Sciences (CAMS) Riyadh Saudi Arabia regarding the existence and content of Saudi PBR as well as their attitude toward its ineffectiveness. METHODS: A 3-parts survey was used to collect data from 239 volunteer students participated in the study. Data were analyzed by descriptive and analytical statistics using SPSS. RESULTS: RESULTS showed that although the majority of students (96.7%) believe in the ineffectiveness of patient's rights, half (52.3%) of them had perceptual knowledge regarding the existence of Saudi PBR and only 7.9% of them were knowledgeable about some items (1-4 items) of the bill. Privacy and confidentiality of patient was the most common known patient's rights. Students' academic level was not correlated to neither their knowledge regarding the bill existence or its content nor to their attitude toward the bill. The majority of the students (93%) reported that only one course within their curriculum was patient's rights-course related. About one quarter (23.4%) of the students reported that teaching staff used to mention patient's rights in their teaching sessions. CONCLUSION: The Saudi health professions students at CAMS have positive attitude toward the ineffectiveness of patient's rights nevertheless they showed limited knowledge regarding the existence of Saudi PBR and its contents. CAMS curriculums do not support the subject of patient's rights.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.009 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".