Exploring how health inequalities are conceptualised and measured in patient experience surveys in acute care: a protocol for a scoping review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
<ns3:p>Introduction Measuring patient experience has become standard practice in many countries. However, despite the widespread awareness of the impact of health inequalities on various aspects of health, including patient experience, a comprehensive examination of whether and how health inequalities are measured in patient experience surveys has yet to be completed. The ways in which these surveys conceptualise health inequalities may have important implications for how information about inequalities in patient experience is reported and used to allocate resources and plan quality improvement in health services. Objective The objective of this scoping review is to map measured and overlooked health inequalities in patient experience surveys in acute care and explore what factors potentially explain current conceptualisations and measurement practices of these health inequalities. Inclusion criteria: Papers and survey programmes that contain survey materials relating to adult patient experience measurement in any acute care context will be included. No limits will be placed the personal characteristics of people who completes the survey. Inclusion criteria Papers and survey programmes that contain survey materials relating to adult patient experience measurement in any acute care context will be included. No limits will be placed the personal characteristics of people who completes the survey. Methods A search strategy was developed with an information specialist. The database search will be limited to after September 2021. Reviews, opinion pieces, letters, editorials, conference proceedings and other such sources will be excluded as a publication source. Grey literature searches will be completed, and relevant experts will also be contacted to identify any patient experience surveys not captured through database or grey literature searches. Non-English papers will be included only if resources allow. Two independent reviewers will complete title and abstract, and full-text screening. Additional reviewers will resolve any conflicts. A data extraction form developed by the review team is being used. The extracted data will be analysed using Critical Discourse Analysis, a qualitative method used to examine how power, dominance and inequality are enacted in text.</ns3:p>
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 | 0.020 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| 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 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".