DOCTORS AND OLDER PATIENTS’ HEALTH LITERACY ON FUNCTIONAL DECLINE AND FRAILTY, RELATED TO AGEING - data from Romania and Latvia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction. The present study – endorsed by the Committee Permanent/ Standing Committee of the European Doctors (CPME) – generated data for the first time on the levels of health literacy on functional decline and frailty, related to ageing, for doctors and older patients (60+ years old) in Romania and Latvia. This trial tackles not only the lack of data on the topic but it provides insight from two EU member states: a Central-South/Eastern and respectively a Baltic – Central-North/Eastern – ones, that (also) struggle with the fall in fertility, coupled with high percentage of outward migration predominantly within the early working age population. Materials and methods. 300 doctors responded to the questionnaire: 148 doctors practicing in Romania and 150 in Latvia. 1 doctor indicated Andorra was his main place of practice and another Romanian doctor indicated Nigeria as his main country of practice. 301 responses were received from 60+ older patients living in Romania and Latvia. Most respondents were aged between 65 and 74 years (38.2%), Conclusions. The self-declared awareness on functional decline and frailty, related to ageing, is high for both patients and doctors in Romania and Latvia (over 70%) but overall levels of health literacy on both these items are determined also by degrees of access, understanding, appraisal and application which reduce them. All these health literacy components are much lower for patients, with over 20% of respondents finding it difficult to access information, understand it and/or demonstrating knowledge about functional decline and/or frailty, whereas for the doctors there is a discrepancy between claiming no problematic awareness, access and understanding and the appraise and apply related components, as defined in the common background of this 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 | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".