Assessing autonomy and informed consent in clinical practice in the Dormaa Ahenkro Presbyterian Hospital: A cross-sectional study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Patient perception in medical practice is crucial, as it reveals how patients interpret and understand their healthcare experiences, including interactions with healthcare providers, treatments, and the overall healthcare system. The primary objective of the study was to investigate two key ethical principles in the medical field: patient autonomy and informed consent, at Dormaa Ahenkro Presbyterian Hospital. The study employed a mixed-methods approach and utilised a cross-sectional design. Through simple random sampling, 53 patients from various units in the hospital were selected. Through a well-structured questionnaire, the data were analysed with GNU PSPP version 1.4.1. The findings revealed that patients held negative perceptions regarding informed consent (30.2%) and autonomy (18.9%). The study also revealed that doctors, in their quest to respect the patients' rights, are limited by inadequate decision-supporting tools to aid patients and the lack of continuing education in this area of patient autonomy and informed consent. The study recommends that both healthcare professionals and patients receive periodic training in bioethical principles to strengthen understanding and ensure compliance.
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 | 0.007 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".