Developing a Patient Charter for People Living With Conditions, Diseases, or Traumas Involving the Skin
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BackgroundStudies have shown disparities in the perception of skin disease burden between patients and physicians, with patients often feeling that the severity, emotional impact, and social repercussions of their skin condition are underestimated. Although physician’s professional behavior is guided by documents such as the Hippocratic Oath, there are no patient-driven principles to guide healthcare interactions involving skin concerns.ObjectiveTo develop a concise and practical charter for patients based on their perceptions of unmet needs with the goals of helping patients express their needs and exercise their rights to accessing and utilizing the healthcare system for conditions, diseases, or traumas involving the skin.MethodsAn initial literature review examined healthcare delivery concerns of patients with skin conditions. Results were used to draft a charter that was reviewed by a Canadian patient focus group representing various skin condition advocacy groups. A revised charter was reviewed by Canadian dermatologists before being formally approved by the Canadian Skin Patient Alliance Board and endorsed by the Canadian Dermatology Association.ResultsThe Patient Charter comprises 8 principles for providing and receiving professional services for the skin in the healthcare setting.ConclusionsThis Patient Charter provides direct insights into patient priorities and will be used as an educational and advocacy tool in healthcare, occupational, and social settings. The intended goal is for the Patient Charter to empower patients and to educate health professions, government, industry, and society at large. Accordingly, the charter will be disseminated through print materials, informational videos, and social media campaigns.
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 | 0.041 | 0.070 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.012 | 0.004 |
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".