PHYSICIAN-PATIENT COMMUNICATION REGARDING PRESCRIBED MEDICATION IN AN AMBULATORY CARE SETTING IN KATHMANDU, NEPAL
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Physician-patient interactions often lead to prescription of medicines. Safety andcompliance in the use of these medicines are largely dependent on proper verbal aswell as written communication between prescriber and patient. However, severalpublished reports suggest that such communication is often inadequate. The presentstudy indicated suboptimal doctor-patient communication at a tertiary care hospitalin Nepal. Fifty-two (21.7%) of the 240 patients/caregivers interviewed after out-patientconsultation claimed that doctors did not provide any information on prescribedmedicines. Nearly a quarter of the 188 patients/caregivers who did report havingreceived information could not recall what they had been told, and in more than halfof these cases the lack of recall was attributed to problems in communication. Frequentuse of the English language and Latin abbreviation in prescribed dosing schedulesindicated a need for improvement in written communication as well.Key Words: prescribing information; communication; physician-patient interaction; Nepal.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 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".