Patient centered infertility care: The health care provider’s perspective
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study describes what health care providers (HCPs) of fertility services perceive their patients to value most, as well as HCPs’ self-evaluation in provision of patient centered infertility care (PCIC). The Patient Centeredness Questionnaire Infertility (PCQ-I) was administered to all clinic staff and completed by approximately 60%. Mean scores and standard deviations were calculated for each dimension as well as for the global score. HCPs ranked staff communication as the highest of the dimensions and accessibility of care as the lowest, respectively indicating areas of strength and weakness. Degree of variance within scoring was used as a marker of consistency of assessment. Ranking of staff competence was the most uniform and ranking of accessibility the most varied, suggesting HCPs are confident in assessing patients’ perceptions of competence, but not with respect to accessibility. Staff communication was thought to be the most important dimension of PCIC for patients, based on the correlation with global score, while care organization was thought to be the least important, showing the lowest correlation with the global satisfaction score. This is the first study to describe North American HCPs’ perceptions of PCIC. This information will inform further professional development in provision of quality PCIC.
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 | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".