Perceptions of the healthcare system among stakeholders
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The U.S. healthcare system is rife with complexities and is consistently a source of political debate. One’s interaction with the system may directly impact the understanding of the system. The objective of this research is to examine the perceptions of the United States healthcare system from the viewpoint of healthcare providers, insurers, and consumers. Using a grounded theory approach, theoretical sampling was used to explore similarities and differences between the three groups of actors in the healthcare system. Data were collected through interviews with thirty-one participants using a semi-structured interview schedule. Themes of cost, access, and inefficiency emerged from the data. The theme of cost included the ability to pay, innovative care delivery, and relation to access. Access included the need for guidance, geographical proximity to healthcare, and socioeconomic status. The theme of inefficiency included how insurance dictates care, and the unwieldy system. Similarities among groups were the high cost of care, ability to pay, and complexity. Differences discovered were the insurers’ dual role as professional and consumer, providers’ informal access to care, and differing views on who is to blame for the high cost of healthcare. This research unveils perspectives of three stakeholders of actors in the healthcare system, providing a foundation for further research to better understand these perspectives in improving equity and access in healthcare. Experience Framework This article is associated with the Staff & Provider 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 | 0.010 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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 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".