MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4234803483 · doi:10.1186/s12919-019-0167-8

Abstracts from the 8th International Conference for Healthcare and Medical Students (ICHAMS)

2019· article· en· W4234803483 on OpenAlexaff

Bibliographic record

VenueBMC Proceedings · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAdvances in Oncology and Radiotherapy
Canadian institutionsBritish Columbia Children's HospitalUniversity of TorontoToronto East General Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineMedical educationHealth careFamily medicinePolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduction: Interprofessional collaboration (IPC) is defined as the active collaboration between health workers from various backgrounds to deliver the optimum quality of care to patients.Due to its important health impacts and lack of studies with similar scope in Qatar and the Middle East, this study has been conducted to explore the knowledge, awareness, experience, readiness and, attitude of healthcare practitioners (HCP) working in primary healthcare centres (PHCC) in Qatar towards IPC.Methods: This study is a quantitative, cross-sectional, prospective, web-paper-based questionnaire survey.Surveys were sent to 2500 HCPs who understand English and are working in PHCCs in Qatar.Formulating questions were adopted from two different validated surveys used in previous research.The data were presented as means ± SD and analysed using Chi-square, and analysis of variance (ANOVA) tests.Results: 1415 participants completed the survey with a response rate of 56.6 %.Participants indicated good awareness of the differences between interaction and collaboration, and that the highest collaboration is with physicians followed by nurses and pharmacists.Moreover, participants claimed that they have long experience with IPC.Results of the inferential analysis showed that females have a stronger attitude and readiness towards IPC than males, and physicians seemed to have more readiness towards IPC than other professionals (P<0.001).Discussion: Results of this study showed positive attitudes towards IPC in the region.Main strength of the study is the multiple administration methods (web/paper surveys), and main limitation is the excessive survey length.Further studies are needed to explore attitudes of HCPs in advanced care facilities.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.150
Threshold uncertainty score0.351

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.035
GPT teacher head0.411
Teacher spread0.377 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBMC ProceedingsSame topicAdvances in Oncology and RadiotherapyFrench-language works237,207