Assessment of Patient and Provider Satisfaction Scales for Project Access
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: This study examined the underlying variables that contribute to patient and provider satisfaction with Project Access, a physician-driven program that connects low-income, uninsured adults (aged 18-64) to denoted specialty care and hospital services. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: Of the 550 physicians and 1400 patients participating per year, 125 physicians and 164 patients completed and returned the 14- and 15-item satisfaction questionnaires, respectively. The data from both surveys were factor analyzed. RESULTS: Patient satisfaction data factored into 4 dimensions: respect from program implementation staff, respect from pre-Project Access enrollment staff, practical health-related issues, and the level of understanding of Project Access guidelines and expectations. Provider satisfaction data factored into 3 dimensions: external services available to patients, receiving recognition and respect, and the administration of Project Access. CONCLUSIONS: Patients' feelings of respect seemed to be closely associated with their satisfaction with Project Access, in addition to the helpfulness of the program. Providers also considered respect and recognition an important factor contributing to their satisfaction, in addition to ease of administrative duties and services available to 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 | 0.005 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".