Desempenho da Atenção Primária à Saúde segundo o instrumento PCATool: uma revisão sistemática
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 study aims to analyze studies that evaluated the performance of Primary Health Care (PHC) services by using the Primary Care Assessment Tool (PCATool) under a worldwide user perspective. This is a systematic review that implemented the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) model, from the following databases: Lilacs, Medline, SciELO, PubMed and the Coordination for the Improvement of Higher Education Personnel (CAPES) Journals Website, using descriptors Primary Care Assessment Tool and PCATool. Considering inclusion and exclusion criteria, we analyzed 22 research papers published from 2007 to 2015. The best-evaluated attributes were cultural competence, first contact use and longitudinality. On the other hand, the worst evaluated were first contact accessibility, family orientation, community orientation and comprehensiveness. Most of the health services evaluated were from Brazil, applied to "traditional" primary care clinic (UBS) and the Health Family Strategy (FHS). Services evaluated should strengthen structure and process components to achieve a better performance in PHC.
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 | 0.005 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.009 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.009 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.031 |
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