Association between person-centredness and financially driven postponement of care in European primary care: a cross-sectional multicountry study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Previous research has shown that person-centred care has beneficial effects on several health-related outcomes. We investigated the association between a general practitioner's person-centred attitude and financially driven postponement of care in European countries. METHODS: In this cross-sectional study, data were collected within the Quality and Costs of Primary Care in Europe study, which included 69 201 patients and 7183 general practitioners from 31 European countries (all 27 European Union member states, 2 candidate states [former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia and Turkey], Norway and Switzerland). Financially driven postponement of care was measured by asking patients whether they had postponed care for financial reasons in the previous 12 months. We constructed a variable for person-centredness using a previously published conceptual framework: 1) exploring both the disease and the illness experience, 2) understanding the whole person, 3) finding common ground and 4) enhancing the patient-physician relationship. We analyzed the data using multilevel logistic regression modelling, adjusting for the strength of a country's primary care system. RESULTS: Having a low income was associated with higher financially driven postponement of care. General practitioners with a person-centred attitude were associated with lower rates of financially driven postponement among their patients. An increase in general practitioners' person-centredness with 1 standard deviation was associated with a decreased likelihood of postponement of care for financial reasons (odds ratio 0.923, 95% confidence interval 0.869-0.981). INTERPRETATION: Person-centred care by general practitioners in Europe was associated with lower financially driven postponement of care, irrespective of the strength of a country's primary care system.
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 | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".