Perception of international patients regarding cross border movement for medical services in India
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: India ranks second as medical travel destination in the world after Thailand, but still a very limited research has been done so far to assess the perception of international patients regarding travel to India for medical services. Objective: To assess the perception of the patients coming across international borders regarding their preference to chose India for medical services.Methods: This was a cross sectional hospital based study which was conducted for a period of 3 months. It was an analytical type of research where 100 international patients were interviewed from 11 different hospitals spread across whole India (representing North and South India). A semi-structured interview scheduled with a five point Likert type scale was used fulfill the objective of the study.Results: More than 80\% of patients were agree with the fact that there is deficiency of quality of care and proper infrastructure in health facilities in their country. majority (> 80\%) of patients were strongly agree or agree to the facts that India has top qualified medical professionals and latest technology for treatment, there is less waiting time for treatment procedure and the treatment is cost effective.Conclusion: Considering the perception of international patients, there is need and scope to improve and expand the health service delivery in India to reap the benefits of medical travel to the maximum possible extent.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".