MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4404808803 · doi:10.1370/afm.22.s1.6211

OECD Patient-Reported Indicators Survey (PaRIS) in Canada: Results From the National Study

2024· article· en· W4404808803 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Sabrina T. Wong, Charlotte Schwarz, Vivian R. Ramsden, Gillian Bartlett‐Esquilant, Fazle Sharior, Marie-Ève Poitras, Leanne Kosowan, Walter P. Wodchis, Udoka Okpalauwaekwe, Andrea Gruneir, Nazeem Muhajarine, Shelley Doucet, Rubee Dev, Vijay Kunaratnam, Vanessa T. Vaillancourt, Charlotte Jensen

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicPrimary Care and Health Outcomes
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSurvey researchComputer scienceRegional scienceGeographyPsychologyApplied psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Context: The PaRIS-Survey, developed by the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) countries, provides international standards for reporting on health system performance. While collecting patient-reported experiences and outcomes is increasingly integrated into acute care, the PaRIS-Survey is the first primary care practice-based survey across multiple OECD countries. Objective: Our objective is to compare health outcomes and experiences of patients with chronic conditions cared for in primary care settings. Study Design and Analysis: Cross-sectional study design. We conducted descriptive and inferential statistics. Setting or Dataset: Canadian primary care practices in 10 provinces. Population Studied: Patients aged 45 years or older with at least one registered contact in the six months before study implementation. Primary care practices were the setting where patients were recruited. Intervention/Instrument: A practice and patient survey were developed based on the PaRIS-Organization for Economic Co-Operation and Development (OECD) survey’s framework and standardized across 22 participating OECD countries. Providers completed the 34-item practice survey. The patient questionnaire (121 items) was organized around four domains related to health and experiences of primary care services and sociodemographic characteristics. Outcome Measures: Patient-reported experiences and outcomes and practice characteristics. Results: Across 8 provinces, more than 65 practices and 4630 patients participated. Seven out of 10 patients report they were not as involved as they wanted to be in decisions about their care; 69% reported they were not considered a “whole person” but just a disease. About 14% of patients reported Poor or Fair mental health, with an increase to 18% regarding physical health. One-third reported that pain interferes with their day-to-day activities. Conclusions: The PaRIS-survey provides the only standardized primary care practice and patient-reported experience and outcome measures administered across Canada. These measures enable patients’ voices on outcomes and experiences of primary care that matter most. Understanding patient reported experiences and outcomes on a regular basis can be used to enable improved operational abilities meant to better meet the needs of patients accessing primary care.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.052
Threshold uncertainty score0.375

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.011
Science and technology studies0.0030.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.108
GPT teacher head0.422
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

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 designObservational
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

Citations0
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicPrimary Care and Health Outcomes→French-language works237,207→