MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2905418537 · doi:10.19043/ipdj.5sp.013

Revealing and acting on patient care experiences: exploring the use of Photovoice in practice development work through case study methodology

2015· article· en· W2905418537 on OpenAlex

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.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Practice Development Journal · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicParticipatory Visual Research Methods
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPhotovoiceWork (physics)PsychologyNursingSociologyPsychotherapistMedicineEngineeringArtVisual arts

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Traditional efforts in healthcare to evaluate patient satisfaction with care, an outcome expected from effective person-centered practices, rely heavily on survey methodology. At West Park Healthcare Centre, a rehabilitation and complex continuing care facility in Ontario, Canada, data from patient satisfaction surveys were proving insufficient on their own to inform and ultimately motivate those in a position to bring about improvement in person-centered practices. Additional and more effective strategies were therefore sought as part of a larger practice development initiative to evaluate our progress in accomplishing person-centered outcomes for our patients and to guide the planning of continuous improvement strategies. 
\nPhotovoice was selected and evaluated through qualitative within-site, multiple case study design as a method to reveal the care experiences of patients living in complex continuing care and facilitate change based on expressed needs and concerns. The findings suggest Photovoice improves understanding of:
\n\tThe factors that influence patient satisfaction with care 
\n\tThe practice changes required to enhance the person-centeredness of that care 
\n
\nHowever, Photovoice did not result in consistent shifts in care practices based on the improved understanding. Going forward, these findings suggest more work is needed to help the organisation move beyond an understanding of what matters to patients to acting on that knowing.
\n

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.016
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.081
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.234
Threshold uncertainty score0.927

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0160.081
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.003
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.927
GPT teacher head0.672
Teacher spread0.255 · 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