Communication with Patients and Families as a Global Determinant of Health: Lessons from Care of Children with Special Health Care Needs
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
Until recently, patients and families were not considered by all providers to be valued members of the health care team. Many providers made decisions away from the bedside and then told the patient and family what they could expect from the plan of care. This top-down approach is not limited to one country or culture but reflects an attitude prevalent in biomedicine around the globe. However, the paradigm is beginning to shift. Skyrocketing health care costs have prompted value-based purchasing, in which third-party payment is linked to patient outcomes and satisfaction. Providers and health care organizations are scrambling for evidence-based models to improve communication and other satisfaction-related criteria. This article proposes that teaching patients and families use of the Situation/Background/Assessment/Recommendations (SBAR) tool, traditionally used among health care professionals, will improve communication, enhance patient and family satisfaction, and potentially improve patient outcomes overall. The SBAR4Patients project demonstrates the positive impact SBAR can have on parents of chronically ill children.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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