Patient experience studies in the circumpolar region: a scoping review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Patient experiences with health systems constitute a crucial pillar of quality care. Across the Arctic, patients' interactions with the healthcare system are influenced by challenges of access, historical inequities and social determinants. This scoping review sought to describe the range and nature of peer-reviewed literature on patient experience studies conducted within the circumpolar region. DESIGN: In a partnership between Danish/Greenlandic, Canadian and American research teams, a scoping review of published research exploring patient experiences in circumpolar regions was undertaken. DATA SOURCES: Seven electronic databases were queried: MEDLINE, Embase, Scopus, 'Global Health 1910 to 2019 Week 11', CINAHL, PsycINFO and SveMed+. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: Articles were eligible for inclusion if they (a) took place in the circumpolar region, (b) reported patients' perspective and (c) were focussed primarily on patient experiences with care, rather than satisfaction with treatment outcome. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: Title and abstract screening, full-text review and data extraction was conducted by four researchers. Bibliometric information such as publication date and country of origin was extracted, as was information regarding study design and whether or not the article contained results relevant to the themes of Indigenous values, rural and remote context, telehealth and climate change. Two researchers then synthesised and characterised results relevant to these themes. RESULTS: Of the 2824 articles initially found through systematic searches in seven databases, 96 articles were included for data extraction. Findings from the review included unique features related to Indigenous values, rural and remote health, telehealth and climate change. CONCLUSIONS: The review findings provide an overview of patient experiences measures used in circumpolar nations. These findings can be used to inform health system improvement based on patient needs in the circumpolar context, as well as in other regions that share common features. This work can be further contextualized through Indigenous methodologies such as sharing circles and community based participatory methods.
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 | 0.027 | 0.105 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.023 | 0.029 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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".