The Experience of Patients Engaged in Co-designing Care Processes
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article presents the experiences of patients engaged in co-designing care under a program entitled, "Transforming Care at the Bedside," based at an academic health sciences center. This descriptive, qualitative study collected data through individual interviews. Participants included patients from 5 units in an academic health sciences center in Quebec, Canada. A total of 6 individual interviews were conducted in November 2014, 15 months after the Transforming Care at the Bedside work began in September 2013. Content analysis was used to analyze the qualitative data. Being listened to and informed gave patients an opportunity to better understand patient needs and the complexity of care in the unit and in the organization. The experience enabled patients to better translate the patient experience for the team's benefit and influence the team's perspective and decisions. Through this experience, several patients felt motivated and empowered and that they afforded consideration through this experience. This study highlights the importance of creating opportunities for patients and health care providers to share their unique experiences and expertise to better understand each other's reality. In this context, they developed a more comprehensive understanding of the issues and worked together to implement realistic changes on behalf of the 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.
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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 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 it