Changes of the perceived quality of care for older patients with hypertension by community health centers in shanghai
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Monitoring and evaluating changes of quality of primary care for older adult hypertensive patients is part of effective delivery of primary care. This study aimed to investigate changes of older adult hypertensive patients' perceived quality of primary care over time in Shanghai. METHODS: Two rounds of cross-sectional questionnaire surveys were conducted in Shanghai in November 2011 and June 2013. A total of 437 patients participated in the first Round survey and 443 in the second. Primary care attributes were collected from Community Health Center users through on-site face-to-face interview surveys using the validated Primary Care Assessment Tool. Multiple linear regressions were used to determine whether there was any difference in primary quality of care scores between 2011 and 2013 surveys. RESULTS: Compared with those in the first Round, participants in the second Round reported higher scores in total primary care quality (28.73 vs. 27.75, P < 0.001), as well as primary care attributes including first-contact utilization (2.81 vs. 2.60, P < 0.001) and accessibility (2.48 vs. 2.44, P < 0.05), continuity of care (3.38 vs. 3.27, P < 0.001), coordination of information (3.82 vs. 3.67, P < 0.001), comprehensiveness of service availability (3.51 vs. 3.39, P < 0.001) and provision (2.69 vs. 2.43, P < 0.001), and cultural competence (2.67 vs. 2.49, P < 0.05), but a lower score in coordination of services (2.45 vs. 2.55, P < 0.05). CONCLUSION: Older adult hypertensive patients perceived better primary care quality from 2011 to 2013 in Shanghai. This may be associated with the general practitioner team service in Shanghai where hypertensive patients were targeted.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".