Stakeholders' views about cardiac report cards: a qualitative study.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
CONTEXT: Health care report cards provide stakeholders with information on health care outcomes and other measures of care. Report cards are most well developed in cardiac care. A necessary first step to ground the development of cardiac report cards in actual experience is to understand the views of those most closely involved. To date, there has been no systematic description of stakeholders' views. OBJECTIVE: To describe stakeholders' views about cardiac report cards. DESIGN: The present study involved qualitative person-to-person interviews with 58 stakeholders from seven Canadian cities with major cardiac programs: Vancouver, Calgary, London, Toronto, Ottawa, Montreal and Halifax. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 58 participants from six stakeholder groups in cardiac care consisting of 15 administrators, 13 nurses, 12 cardiologists, seven outcomes researchers, six cardiac surgeons and five members of the media who report on health care. OUTCOME MEASURES: Participants' views and expectations of cardiac report cards were analyzed and organized into themes. RESULTS: The views of stakeholders on cardiac report cards were organized according to four themes: PURPOSE: Participants identified two purposes--accountability for quality care as well as public education and informed decision-making; DEVELOPMENT: Participants thought that the development of report cards should involve multistakeholder collaboration; CONTENT: Participants discussed three concepts--context, level of reporting and data; and Dissemination: Mechanisms discussed include the Internet, media and directly to health care providers. CONCLUSIONS: The views of stakeholders regarding cardiac report cards can be the basis of an evidence-based conceptual framework that can guide in the development, implementation and delivery of cardiac report cards. In the present study, the views of cardiologists, cardiac surgeons, cardiac nurses, administrators, outcomes researchers and members of media are described. A next step is to explore the views of cardiac patients.
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 | 0.030 | 0.041 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.012 | 0.010 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| 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".