Empowering Patients With a Shared Communication Tool: A Patient-Oriented Multimethods Pilot Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Not all patients feel empowered to take on the expanding role as active members in their healthcare journey. Healthcare services must shift attention to supporting patients and families in this emerging role. This support includes providing communication tools designed for patients and families to empower them to speak up. Two Plan-Do-Study-Act (PDSA) cycles were conducted to test a communication tool, the Jargon Alert!/WAIT card, with patients/families and providers in a Canadian rehabilitation hospital. After the first PDSA cycle, feedback from patients/families (n = 24), and providers (n = 4), informed modifications. The new Question Alert! card was retested in the same clinics. Patients/families (n = 13) reported the new card was a valuable tool enabling them to ask questions, although not all patients or family members expressed the need to use the card. The participating providers (n = 4) thought the Question Alert! card was helpful for quieter patients or family members who normally shy away from asking questions. The shared communication tool designed with patients improved the patient-centered experience and empowered patients/families to be more involved in their care.
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 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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".