Awareness and Utilisation of Primary Healthcare to Reduce Emergency Department Overcrowding in Saudi Arabia
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background Patients seeking emergency department (ED) care for non-acute conditions are a major contributor to ED overcrowding, which results in longer wait times. Method This was a cross-sectional study, conducted using an online survey among the Saudi population to assess their awareness about primary healthcare clinics (PHCCs) and urgent care clinics (UCCs), their role, and their scope of practice. Results A total of 565 participants were included in this study. Most of the respondents (81.1%) reported lengthy waiting times in the ED. Moreover, most (81.6%) stated that they had never visited a family doctor, yet they (92.6%) favoured having one for follow-up care. Close to half of the participants (50.3%) reported attending PHCCs without an appointment, and the majority of them (69.2%) said that PHCCs were overcrowded. Finally, most participants (92.4%) had not heard aboutUCCs. Conclusion ED overcrowding and prolonged waiting times remain a public concern. PHCCs and UCCs are underutilised, and this is attributed to the lack of awareness about their scope and their services.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.006 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it