The History of the Health Consumer: Exploring the changing roles of patients in the healthcare system
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The term health consumer reflects a shift in healthcare ideology from traditional patient-provider roles to a system where the patient is an active player in the determination of their health decisions (1). As a result, individuals interacting within the healthcare system are gaining increased access to empowering information and technology. Consumer friendly technologies such as smart phone application and websites have been created to allow individuals to not only have diagnostic information previously only accessible via healthcare providers, but also more information on health therapies and interventions, including do-it-yourself style guides. The development and projection of this newfound role and accompanying health science technologies, as well as the appropriate synthesis of these factors with the healthcare system, has yet to be determined. Inevitably, the ability of the current healthcare system to adequately adapt to the changing demands of the health consumer will determine the future success and efficiency of the system. The goal of this research was to explore the following questions: What is the role and importance of health consumers within the healthcare system? And how has this role developed? In order to answer these questions, we aimed to pinpoint chronological changes in health consumer discourse involving the needs, wants, and roles of consumers; a scoping literature review of both grey and academic databases was performed. Ultimately, by discerning shifts in these variables we hoped to identify the current breadth of literature on health consumerism as well as identify areas in need of future study.
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 | 0.016 | 0.018 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.025 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.014 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| 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".