Knowledge and Attitude of Saudi Health Professions’ Students Regarding Patient's Bill of Rights
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Patient’s rights are worldwide considerations. Saudi Patient’s Bill of Rights (PBR) which was \nestablished in 2006 contained 12 items. Lack of knowledge regarding the Saudi PBR limits its implementation \nin health facilities. This study aimed to investigate the knowledge of health professions’ students at College of \nApplied Medical Sciences (CAMS) Riyadh Saudi Arabia regarding the existence and content of Saudi PBR as well \nas their attitude toward its ineffectiveness. \nMethods:A 3-parts survey was used to collect data from 239 volunteer students participated in the study. Data \nwere analyzed by descriptive and analytical statistics using SPSS. \nResults:Results showed that although the majority of students (96.7%) believe in the ineffectiveness of patient’s \nrights, half (52.3%) of them had perceptual knowledge regarding the existence of Saudi PBR and only 7.9% of \nthem were knowledgeable about some items (1–4 items) of the bill. Privacy and confidentiality of patient was \nthe most common known patient’s rights. Students’ academic level was not correlated to neither their knowledge \nregarding the bill existence or its content nor to their attitude toward the bill. The majority of the students (93%) \nreported that only one course within their curriculum was patient’s rights-course related. About one quarter \n(23.4%) of the students reported that teaching staff used to mention patient’s rights in their teaching sessions. \nConclusion:The Saudi health professions students at CAMS have positive attitude toward the ineffectiveness \nof patient’s rights nevertheless they showed limited knowledge regarding the existence of Saudi PBR and its \ncontents. CAMS curriculums do not support the subject of patient’s rights.
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".