Patient's expectations and satisfaction with the public hospitals: a case study of tertiary care Allied Hospitals of Rawalpindi, Pakistan -
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: To know the level as well as determinants of patients' satisfactions with the medical services at tertiary care allied hospitals of Rawalpindi. Methodology: This cross sectional study was conducted in three tertiary care allied hospitals i.e. Holy Family Hospital (HFH), Benazir Bhutto Hospital (BBH) and District Head Quarter (DHQ) Hospital, Rawalpindi, Pakistan. It included 180 patients who was selected by using stratified-convenient sampling method. Interview schedule was used for data collection. Results: Patients with lower income and education preferred public hospitals for treatment. 82.6% patients were quite satisfied with the services and facilities available at public hospitals. Most were satisfied with the attitude of the doctors but majority of respondents were looking annoyed with the attitude of staff and nurses. Out of total 82.6% satisfied patients, the satisfaction of 74.2% was simply based on getting free medical services and medicines whereas; out of total 17.4% dissatisfied patients, more than half were displeased merely because they did not get expensive medicines free of cost from hospitals. Same determinant was also influencing the decision of selecting health care services, as two third of the respondents chose public hospital because of free medical services and medicines while 32% select for other reasons. Conclusion: Majority of the patients were quite satisfied with the services and facilities available at public hospitals whereby economic determinant was dominating.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 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) | 0.004 | 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".