Information Overload—Do We Read All the Posters Displayed Across the Walls on Hospital Wards?
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 AND OBJECTIVES: To establish whether posters displayed across the walls on hospital wards are read, what information is important, and how the information should be received. METHODS: Sixty-eight staff and 32 patients' relatives were interviewed across 3 older people's medical wards followed by 20 follow-up secondary questionnaires postintervention. RESULTS: Only 23% of those interviewed were able to recall any of the posters displayed, and of those, 34% did not find the information useful. Those interviewed were enthusiastic about utilizing alternative media. A quarter felt the walls across the hospitals wards should be for artwork. Among patients' relatives interviewed, common information requests were "the discharge pathway," "delirium," and "falls." Based on the initial findings, a targeted information board was installed and a mural was painted across the wall in one of the wards. Further post-intervention interviews with patients' relatives showed that the board was well received, but further unmet information needs were uncovered. Despite the new mural, 45% called for more paintings. CONCLUSIONS: Most people ignore the posters displayed across the walls of hospital wards, and unmet information needs are rife. An appetite exists for alternative media. Paintings were earnestly called for, highlighting how a comforting environment could be part of the holistic care we offer patients in hospital.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 it