MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4400379980 · doi:10.61838/kman.hn.2.3.10

Healthcare Providers' Perspectives on the Implementation of Patient-Centered Care Models in Hospitals

2024· article· en· W4400379980 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueHealth Nexus · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicPatient-Provider Communication in Healthcare
Canadian institutionsSimon Fraser University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHealth careNursingMedicinePolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study explores healthcare providers' perspectives on the implementation of patient-centered care (PCC) models in hospitals. It aims to identify key themes related to understanding, experiences, perceived benefits, and challenges associated with PCC to inform better practices and policies. A qualitative research design was employed, utilizing semi-structured interviews to collect data from 21 healthcare providers, including doctors, nurses, and administrative staff, in various hospitals. Participants were selected through purposive sampling to ensure diverse perspectives. Data collection continued until theoretical saturation was achieved. The interview data were transcribed and analyzed using NVivo software, following a thematic analysis approach to identify and refine key themes. The analysis revealed four main themes: understanding of PCC, experiences with implementation, perceived benefits, and challenges faced. Providers described PCC as holistic, individualized care requiring effective communication and cultural competence. Implementation experiences highlighted the importance of planning, resource allocation, interdisciplinary collaboration, and feedback mechanisms. Benefits of PCC included improved patient satisfaction and outcomes, better work environments, efficiency in care delivery, patient trust, and enhanced staff morale. Challenges encompassed resistance to change, resource limitations, training and support deficiencies, interpersonal dynamics, and systemic barriers. The study underscores the critical role of comprehensive training, effective communication, and adequate resources in implementing PCC. Despite significant challenges, the benefits of PCC for patients and providers are evident. Addressing implementation barriers through continuous education, supportive policies, and robust feedback mechanisms can enhance the adoption and sustainability of PCC models. Future research should focus on expanding sample diversity, quantitative measures, and the impact of technology on PCC.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.369
Threshold uncertainty score0.988

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.135
GPT teacher head0.449
Teacher spread0.314 · 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