Attitude towards collaborative care among nurses and physicians at a teaching hospital, Chitwan
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Interprofessional collaboration is recognized as a means of improving patient outcomes and the cost effectiveness of care in a variety of settings from primary health care to acute care to rehabilitation. Hence, health professionals must be able to work collaboratively in interprofessional teams or groups in order to ensure consistent, continuous, and reliable care. This study was conducted to identify attitude towards collaborative care among nurses and physicians. A descriptive cross sectional study design was adopted and a total 131 respondents were selected from different units of Chitwan Medical College Teaching Hospital by using probability stratified proportionate random sampling technique. A standardized tool (Jefferson Scale of attitude towards collaborative care among Nurses and Physician) was used to collect the data. Descriptive and inferential statistics was used to analyze data. Nearly half of the physicians (47.7%) and one quarter of the nurses (25.3%) had good attitude towards collaborative care. There is significant association between the level of attitude of physician and professional qualification (p=0.016) and designation of physicians (p=0.013). The hospital administration needs to focus establishing environment for health professionals’ to develop positive attitude toward collaborative care.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".