Bibliographic record
Abstract
Patients are the recipients of the provision of healthcare and an invaluable source when evaluating the quality of healthcare provided in our hospitals.There is limited research evaluating patient perceptions of overall quality of healthcare.A larger study "Convergence and Divergence in Perspectives in Quality" represented the first Saskatchewan effort to explore patient perceptions and what aspects patients indicate as important when evaluating the provision of quality of care.In the larger study, patients hospitalized with one of four tracer conditions (cerebral vascular accident, myocardial infarction, prostate disease and hysterectomy) were surveyed about their involvement in and satisfaction with the provision of healthcare.The present study, using a data subset of the larger study, specifically explored patient's perceptions on their involvement in decision-making, feelings of being well informed of one's medical condition, and sources of health information.These perceptions were correlated with the overall ratings of quality of care.Findings indicated a moderately high overall rating of quality of care.Increased involvement in decision making regarding medical care and options for treatment, and the feelings of being fairly or well informed were associated with higher ratings of overall quality of care.While few of the correlations reached greater than moderate effect, it is still clear that opportunities for patients' participation in decisions related to their medical care and patients' feelings of being fairly or well informed contributed to overall perceptions of quality of care.The majority of patients preferred their doctor or nurse to provide information about their medical condition, thus indicating the human touch is still preferred.Nurses can use these results to advocate for time to ensure patients have access to correct information and are included in decisions about their care.iii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I would like to thank my committee supervisor, Dr. Lynnette Leeseberg Stamler
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 | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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".