MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4403162284 · doi:10.70082/esiculture.vi.1440

Quality of patient Care with new Privatized Healthcare system: A Systematic Review of Technology Integration and Health Insurance"

2024· review· en· W4403162284 on OpenAlexaff
Azhar Ahmed Halawi, Hatem Saeed Ayed Alqahtani, Mohammed Mousa Essa Ayyashi, Nooran Hashim Basha, Eman Hamad Alkanaani, Malak Awn Alharthi, Khadejah Abdullah Najmi, Noor Faisal Alhuzali, Abdullah Shayakh Alshehri, Othman Ali Alshehri

Bibliographic record

VenueEvolutionary Studies in Imaginative Culture · 2024
Typereview
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicBusiness and Economic Development
Canadian institutionsInnovation Cluster (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHealth careQuality (philosophy)BusinessHealthcare systemHealth insuranceSystematic reviewMEDLINEPolitical scienceEconomicsEconomic growth

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: The quality of patient care is effective for new privatized healthcare system. For providing the effective services to the patients’ technology tools play important role. Also, new privatized healthcare organizations introduce the healthcare insurance. The aim of current systematic review is to explore the quality of patient care with new privatized healthcare system in the context of technology integration and health insurance. Method: A thorough search of databases, including Scopus, PsycINFO, and Web of Science, was conducted in order to categorize relevant research that was published between 2020 and 2024. The inclusion criteria for this research were English-language papers that focused on exploring the quality of patient care with new privatized healthcare system in the context of technology integration and health insurance.Following an initial screening and quality evaluation, eleven studies were included in the synthesis. Results: The study database was searched through electronic databases, identifying 1679 records. 15 unique records were assessed for eligibility based on titles and abstracts. After initial screening, 11 studies were selected for full-text assessment. After independent review, 11 studies met criteria and were included in the systematic review. The selected studies were conducted between 2020-2024 and varied in design. The PRISMA flowchart illustrates the selection process. Quality evaluation involves peer-reviewed journals, overall assessment, and quality management. Conclusion: As the SR concluded that advanced technologies like electronic health records, telemedicine, and predictive analytics can improve patient care and treatment accuracy. However, challenges like rising costs, complex insurance plans, and data security need to be addressed. Effective training for healthcare providers, clear insurance plans, and robust information security systems are crucial for maximizing profits.

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)0.028
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.100
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.028
Threshold uncertainty score0.148

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0280.100
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0070.011
Bibliometrics0.0150.016
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0050.004
Open science0.0020.003
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 head0.051
GPT teacher head0.369
Teacher spread0.317 · 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 designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations0
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEvolutionary Studies in Imaginative CultureSame topicBusiness and Economic DevelopmentFrench-language works237,207