Comparison of health care system views and experiences in five nations, 2001: findings from The Commonwealth Fund 2001 International Health Policy Survey.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
T he Commonwealth Fund 2001 International Health Policy Survey shows significant differences in the health care experiences of adults in Australia, Canada, New Zealand, the United Kingdom, and the United States.While each country excels in its performance on certain dimensions of health care no one country is uniformly the bestseveral distinct health system patterns emerged upon close analysis.The United States in particular stands out as having the most severe health care access problems related to cost, the greatest medical expense burdens, and the most pervasive inequities in care between adults with above-average and below-average income. Australia and New Zealand fared reasonably well on many of the health care access measures, especially access to physicians. However, they ranked in the middle of the five countries in terms of cost-related access and medical bill problemslagging Canada and the United Kingdom but outperforming the United States.Waiting times for elective or nonemergency surgery, meanwhile, are shortest in the U.S. and longest in the U.K.; relatively long waits were reported in Australia, Canada, and New Zealand as well. Ratings of overall medical care and hospital care were similar across the five countries. Nurse shortages were a concern shared by all people: more than one-fifth of survey respondents in each country said the availability of nurses in hospitals was a problem. This Issue Brief summarizes health system differences among the five nations included in The Commonwealth Fund 2001 International Health Policy Survey. It focuses on measures of satisfaction with the health system, health care access problems, waiting times, quality of care, and financial burdens, and also The Commonwealth Fund is a private foundation supporting independent research on health and social issues.
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 | 0.004 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".