A Critical Analysis of the Impact of the Medical Insurance System on the Relationship between Doctor and Patients- based on a comparative study of Canada and China
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective To explore the key dimensions of the impact of the medical insurance system on the relationship between doctors and patients in China. By comparing the design of different medical insurance systems and their influence on the relationship between doctors and patients in China and Canada, there are aims to improve doctor-patient relationships and to suggest policies. Methods A quantitative and qualitative analysis was conducted to compare the relevant medical insurance arrangements between China and Canada and to provide reasonable policy recommendations. Results The different institutional arrangements of financing mechanisms, payment mechanisms, reimbursement mechanisms, fund operation and management mechanisms, legislative supervision mechanisms and medical insurance elements in different places are the key system causes of the different results of the doctor-patient relationship in China and Canada. Conclusion The construction of a harmonious relationship between doctors and patients is not only the responsibility of doctors and patients, as the medical insurance system plays an important role in it. International experience shows that a reasonable institutional design and elements of the arrangements influences the doctor-patient relationship, to provide a good institutional environment. * Indicates faculty mentor.
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.
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 | 0.002 | 0.035 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 it