MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2963169013 · doi:10.1017/s1463423619000446

Integrated people-centred primary health care in Greece: unravelling Ariadne’s thread

2019· article· en· W2963169013 on OpenAlexaff
Christos Lionis, Emmanouil K. Symvoulakis, Adelais Markaki, Elena Petelos, Sophia Papadakis, Dimitra Sifaki‐Pistolla, Maria Papadakakis, Kyriakos Souliotis, Chariklia Tziraki

Bibliographic record

VenuePrimary Health Care Research & Development · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicPrimary Care and Health Outcomes
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
FundersUniversity of Crete
KeywordsDeclarationPrimary health carePrimary careRefugeeNursingHealth carePublic relationsMedicinePolitical scienceFamily medicineLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The 40th anniversary of the World Health Organization Alma-Ata Declaration in Astana offered the impetus to discuss the extent to which integrated primary health care (PHC) has been successfully implemented and its impact on research and practice. This paper focuses on the experiences from Greece in implementing primary health care reform and lessons learned from the conduct of evidence-based research. It critically examines what appears to be impeding the effective implementation of integrated PHC in a country affected by the financial and refugee crisis. The key challenges for establishing integrated people-centred primary care include availability of family physicians, information and communication technology, the prevention and management of chronic disease and migrant and refugees' health. Policy recommendations are formulated to guide the primary health care reform in Greece, while attempting to inform efforts in other countries with similar conditions.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.026
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.018
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.026
Threshold uncertainty score0.135

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0260.018
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0040.018
Scholarly communication0.0110.013
Open science0.0010.013
Research integrity0.0060.008
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.079
GPT teacher head0.440
Teacher spread0.361 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations51
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePrimary Health Care Research & DevelopmentSame topicPrimary Care and Health OutcomesFrench-language works237,207