Patient Responses on Quality of Care and Satisfaction with Staff After Integrated HIV Care in South African Primary Health Care Clinics
Bibliographic record
Abstract
HIV care integrated into primary health care (PHC) encourages reorganized service delivery but could increase workload. In 2012-2013, we surveyed 910 patients and caregivers at two time points after integration in four clinics in Free State, South Africa. Likert surveys measured quality of care (QoC) and satisfaction with staff (SwS). QoC scores were lower for females, those older than 56 years, those visiting clinics every 3 months, and child health participants. Regression estimates showed QoC scores higher for ages 36-45 versus 18-25 years, and lower for those attending clinics for more than 10 years versus 6-12 months. Overall, SwS scores were lower for child health attendees and higher for tuberculosis attendees compared to chronic disease care attendees. Research is needed to understand determinants of disparities in QoC and SwS, especially for child health, diabetes, and hypertension attendees, to ensure high-quality care experiences for all patients attending PHC clinics with integrated HIV care.
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 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".