Patient Engagement in Provincial and Territorial Medical Association Decision-Making: A Rapid Scoping Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In recent years health systems have engaged patient partners in decision-making. Provincial and Territorial Medical Associations (PTMAs) are the sole bargaining agents for physicians. PTMA negotiations with governments are often seen as insular. Adding the patient perspective could add tremendous value to negotiating committees, etc. as PTMAs look to advocate for person-centered care provided by their members. Using rapid scoping review methodology, PubMed was searched for studies reporting on the use of patient partners in PTMA decision-making. Title and abstract screening were conducted by a single reviewer with full-text review screened by two reviewers. The search yielded 231 titles with 10 moving to full-text review and ultimately no titles meeting inclusion criteria. This empty scoping review has identified a paucity of literature reporting on patient engagement in PTMA decision-making. Further research is required to determine the utility of introducing patient partners in this capacity.
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 | 0.135 | 0.383 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.028 | 0.029 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.013 | 0.013 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.002 |
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".