INTERNATIONAL EXPERIENCE OF SOCIAL WORK IN THE HEALTHCARE SYSTEM
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The reform of the medical industry, the problems of medical care that arose in Ukraine in connection with the Covid-19 pandemic and led to a deterioration in the physical, psychological and social well-being of the population, sharply raised the question of the work of the medical industry and the directions for its improvement. In many countries of the world one of the ways to improve the quality of medical services is the implementation of social work in the medical industry.The article is devoted to the analysis of foreign experience of social work in the health care system, the roots of which are deeply connected with the development of modern public health in many countries of the world. Today, many social workers around the world practice health care, drawing on the historical experience of combining clinical, intermediate and population-based approaches to have a greater impact on health. However, the historical significance of this long-standing interdisciplinary collaboration and its implications remain poorly understood. The article is based on primary and modern sources of research on the history of the development of social work in the field of health care, demonstrates examples of successful cooperation between social and medical workers. The main historical stages of the development of social work in the field of health care in the USA, France, Canada, Great Britain, Bulgaria, etc. are considered. The article concludes that despite the temporal, geographical, economic, political, cultural and other differences, social work in the field of health care as an independent professional activity in different countries has common features: a focus on overcoming barriers in the environment for achieving health by individuals, their families, groups and communities; assistance in attracting resources to achieve full health of clients; perception of personality and its health as a whole; the creation of family-oriented, community-centered and consumer-driven services; the development of social work in the field of health was often facilitated by the initiative and perseverance of individuals, etc.
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 | 0.007 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.016 | 0.022 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.014 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 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".