Patient's Perception of Primary Health Care Provision With Respect to Access, Continuity and Coordination—InCept: An International Qualitative Perspective
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Health care systems are confronted with an increasing burden of (multi-)morbidity and a shortfall of healthcare providers. Coordination and continuity of care in chronic and multi-morbid patient is especially important. As qualitative patient experience data within care processes is scarce, we aim to increase the understanding of chronically ill patient's perspectives by assessing patient experiences in different health systems while treated in primary care. Patients were recruited via GPs from Germany, Sweden, Switzerland, and the British island of Jersey. To ascertain regular healthcare utilisation, inclusion criteria were either a stroke, and/or a myocardial infarction or heart failure during the past year, and an underlying metabolic syndrome. Identical semi-structured interview-guides were used in the respective language. Transcribed interviews were analysed according to inductive-deductive qualitative content analysis. Based on 22 interviews we derived four main categories (patient centeredness, continuity, coordination, access). Overall, healthcare processes were considered positive if information flow was personal and functional. Non-physician staff seemed to create reassurance. A long-lasting doctor-patient relationship was connected to the context of trust and security. Patients were critical of a perceived lack of time, inducing insufficient counselling and information-flow. This international explorative study suggests that patients' experiences can provide important information about care provision. Patients consistently focused more on relational aspects rather than on structures or functions. This has connotations for healthcare planning; for example, by providing non-physician staff to support patients through their care pathway and to improve the cooperation between providers.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.012 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".