The paradoxical injunctions of partnership in care: Patient engagement and partnership between issues and challenges
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Partnership in care and patient engagement is an expanding approach and tremendously promising for improving the quality of healthcare services. However, the approach could be subject to many issues and challenges of various kinds. In this paper, we develop a reflection of the challenges and issues that the approach of patient engagement and partnership in care is facing. After a brief presentation of certain key concepts of partnership in care and patient engagement, we discuss in this paper the most worthy of consideration issues that we identified and classified as follows: Political, Financial, Organizational, Clinical, and Ethical Issues. We then conclude the paper with certain recommendations that may help to better deal with those challenges and issues and alleviate their impacts. Experience Framework This article is associated with the Patient, Family & Community Engagement lens of The Beryl Institute Experience Framework (https://www.theberylinstitute.org/ExperienceFramework). Access other PXJ articles related to this lens. Access other resources related to this lens.
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 | 0.066 | 0.053 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.026 | 0.111 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.029 | 0.038 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.038 |
| Research integrity | 0.014 | 0.039 |
| 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".