The Controversy of Views About Health Service Quality Between Health Provider and Patients With Bpjs Insurance:A Case Study in Mamami Hospital – Kupang
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
BACKGROUND: The latest challenge of hospital service system in Indonesia now adays is the controversy of views about health service quality between health provider with patients andfamilies. Patients as the ultimate assessors measure the quality from medical care started up to the patients get cured without any physical defect. Mean while, the health providers as the health suppliers see the quality of health service from the using of medical scientific standard up to the curing of sickness.PURPOSE: The paper analyzes the controversy of health service quality between the Providers and patients in Mamami Hospitaluse BPJS (Badan Penyelenggara JaminanSosial) as a Social Insurance Administration Bureau in Indonesia.METHODS: Observational survey with cross sectional. Independent variables: sympathy and empathy, interaction, environment quality. Dependent variable: health service quality. Variables measurement: Likert scale. Population and sample: BPJS inpatient for 3 days in Mamami hospital. Sample number: 200 respondents taken with purposive sampling.RESULT: The three independent variables effect health service quality. Significant point of sympathy and empathy (β = 490; α = 0.00); environment quality (β = 180; α = 0.48); interaction with patients (β = 233; α = 0.18).CONCLUSION: Controversy of viewseliminated in modern health service system. Mixed service between medical care and cognitive service is the answer. The providers come in and get inpatient service in the room for patients with psychological deficiency. The mixed of service have impacts in the change of patients’ status: from consumers to customers. The resultant for health service institutions is profitability.
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 | 0.025 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it