MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2887416771 · doi:10.20381/ruor-22233

Public Interest, Patient Engagement and the Transparency Initiative of the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario

2018· dissertation· en· W2887416771 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Meagan Foreman

Bibliographic record

VenueuO Research (University of Ottawa) · 2018
Typedissertation
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicPatient-Provider Communication in Healthcare
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTransparency (behavior)MedicinePublic engagementMedical educationPublic interestPolitical sciencePublic relationsFamily medicineLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In recent years, patient-centredness has become a central focus in improving health care quality. In 2010, the Canadian Medical Association (CMA) launched a four-year action plan aimed at transforming Canada’s health care through a framework aimed at creating a culture of patient-centred care, accountability and responsibility. Several of Canada’s provincial governments proceeded to launch patient-centred action plans, including the Government of Ontario’s “Patients First” framework, which prioritizes patient engagement and increased transparency. As an example of how organizations are putting these values into practice, the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario (CPSO)’s transparency initiative, which aims to make more physician-specific information available to the public in order to help patients make informed decisions about their health care, was examined. This thesis asks how physicians and members of the public feel that the transparency initiative aligns with the CPSO’s public interest mandate. Using discourse analysis, 226 responses by physicians, members of the public and organizations on a discussion forum in the Policy Consultations section of the CPSO’s website were analyzed in order to identify the main themes in arguments for or against increased transparency. The results show that physicians and members of the public tended to differ in their views on the purposes and probable outcomes of the CPSO’s transparency initiative. The majority of physicians worried about patients’ ability to accurately understand and utilize the information being provided to them, and the negative impact that this might have on individual physicians and on the physician-patient relationship more broadly. Most members of the public had a more positive outlook on the potential for transparency to build public trust, help patients become informed and engaged decision-makers and improve patient safety.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.019
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.040
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.162
Threshold uncertainty score0.861

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0190.040
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0350.029
Scholarly communication0.0090.003
Open science0.0010.007
Research integrity0.0040.007
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.414
GPT teacher head0.410
Teacher spread0.004 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueuO Research (University of Ottawa)→Same topicPatient-Provider Communication in Healthcare→French-language works237,207→