Toward a universal definition of provider-patient attachment in primary care
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To explore definitions of provider-patient attachment in primary care (PC) and help inform a universal definition of provider-patient attachment. DATA SOURCES: Comprehensive searches were conducted using the electronic databases MEDLINE (Ovid), PubMed, CINAHL (EBSCO), PsycInfo (Ovid), Social Sciences Abstracts (EBSCO), Cochrane Library, Scopus, Embase (Ovid), Google Scholar, and ResearchGate. STUDY SELECTION: A scoping review was conducted. Articles focusing on PC setting, provider-patient attachment, and attachment approaches (enrolment, rostering, registration, empanelment) were included. All articles were from English-language publications and were available in full text in or after 2005. Of the 5955 unique titles, 97 peer-reviewed articles and 45 gray literature sources were included. SYNTHESIS: . Provider-patient attachment is a confirmed affiliation between a patient and a regular primary care provider (PCP). This affiliation can be formal or informal. The goals are to deliver longitudinal care and establish a therapeutic relationship (relational continuity). Enrolment and empanelment are mechanisms that enable the affiliation of a patient with a PCP. Enrolment is a formal process of provider-patient affiliation, while empanelment is the assignment of a patient to a PCP. CONCLUSION: is provided: the confirmed and documented affiliation between a patient and a regular PCP (a clinician, ie, a family physician or nurse practitioner, etc), or a combination of clinician and care team or practice in which the PCP is responsible for providing longitudinal and continuous care to the patient via any delivery channel (ie, in person, remotely, or both), enabled by provider access to patient health information.
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 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
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 teacher head, 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".