MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4396809292 · doi:10.62663/pjpprp.v8i1.79

EXPECTATIONS OF PATIENTS TOWARDS HEALTHCARE: A CASE STUDY OF NIGERIA AND CANADA

2017· article· en· W4396809292 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Adeola Aminat Odebode, Falilat Anike Okesina

Bibliographic record

VenuePJPPRP · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicHealthcare Policy and Management
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHealth careMedicineFamily medicineBusinessEconomic growthEconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study investigated the expectations of patients in Nigeria and Canada towards healthcare. The relationship of age and gender with expectation of healthcare was also explored. The descriptive research design was adopted for the study. The sample consisted of two thousand and four hundred respondents who were selected from both countries (Nigeria and Canada) using simple random, purposive and systematic random techniques.A new questionnaire entitled“Expectations of Patients towards Healthcare Questionnaire” (EPHQ) was developed and used in the studytoaddress theresearch questions andhypotheses. Thevalidity of thescale was achieved through team of experts and the split half reliability of the instrument was .67. The data collected wasanalyzed using frequency counts, percentages,facto analysist-test and Analysis of Variance (ANOVA). The results showed that there wasa significant difference between expectations of patients in Nigeria and Canadatowards healthcare based onageandgender. It was concluded that Pan African and Canadian policies, processes and programs to further empower and sustain healthcare systems for the future,should be well structured to meet patients’ expectations.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.132
Threshold uncertainty score0.265

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.003
Science and technology studies0.0170.002
Scholarly communication0.0030.001
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.068
GPT teacher head0.301
Teacher spread0.232 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
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

Citations1
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePJPPRPSame topicHealthcare Policy and ManagementFrench-language works237,207