Knowledge and vews of common citizens regarding ambulatory surgery: a pilot international survey
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background and Aims: Ambulatory surgery (AS) has increased rapidly in most countries since the 1990’s. There is an increasing effort by national healthcare systems to disseminate clinical information about this type of surgical environment to their populations. We conducted a public survey to understand what citizens think about AS and its organization in countries across the world. Methods: This prospective observational study used a survey presented on a tablet computer. Subjects were asked about their surgical experience and those submitted to AS were asked about their satisfaction rate. Subjects were also asked if they associate AS to a surgical programme and the level of information obtained from their National Health Services. Results: 400 citizens from 47 different countries were divided in six geographical areas, European (n=4, North, Central, East and South) and non-European (n=2, Developed and Non-Developed Countries / Emergent Economies). 51.0% reported they had heard of AS, and 29.3% had undergone an AS procedure. Those who had undergone AS, reported a high level of satisfaction with the procedure, with no differences in geographical areas (P=0.229). 90.5% would recommend AS to relatives and friends. Nevertheless, those interviewed wished to have more information related to AS from their National Health Authorities (NHA). This was significant in East, South-European, and Non-Developed NonEuropean countries (P<0.001). Conclusion: The majority of the citizens relates AS as a surgical programme. Although more than 90% of all interviewed would recommend this surgical setting, all agree that more information related to AS should be available from their NHA.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".