Bibliographic record
Abstract
IN THIS ISSUE of Longwood's Review, we feature two articles that focus directly on the heart of healthcare -caring for patients.The first paper, published here in its entirety, presents results of focus groups with patients receiving primary healthcare in an urban setting.This research is part of a larger funded project based at the University of Wisconsin that is specifically investigating medical errors in primary care.Dowell et al. were interested in determining patients' perceptions of what constitutes "good" or "inadequate" care.The findings showed that patients were most concerned about system issues such as long waiting times, lack of regular access to appointments, lack of communication, and inadequate staffing or funding.A subset of themes that were brought to light by the research included concern about providers' interpersonal skills in that primary care physicians are often rushed or do not seem to listen.However, on the positive side, patients valued the knowledge and technical skills of doctors and nurses.The patients interviewed also raised comments about errors in terms of medication errors, lapses in attention and technical errors.This small study will now form the bases of a large-scale investigation from both providers' and patients' perspectives.The second paper, which is published in full on the Longwoods Review website, reports on important efforts to examine the status of cancer patient education in Canada.Telephone interviews were conducted with the leadership of the formal Canadian Cancer Centres and Clinics (CCCs).Accrediting bodies such as the Joint Commission on the Accreditation of Healthcare Organizations in the United States and the Canadian Council on Service Accreditation are increasingly interested in developing guidelines for patient education.In this paper, Freidman et al. report on both past and future efforts to create a Comprehensive Patient Education Network (CPEN) in Canada.In fact, in 2003 a CPEN Canada proposal was endorsed by the Canadian Association of Provincial Cancer Agencies, the interprovincial organization representing provincial/territorial cancer agencies and programs engaged in cancer control.These are critical steps that will lead to the development of national standards and guidelines for cancer patients' education.
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 | 0.005 | 0.035 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.291 | 0.131 |
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".