Patient-centered care in Parkinson's disease
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Patient centeredness means providing care that is respectful of and responsive to individual patient preferences, needs and values, and ensuring that patient values guide all clinical decisions’.The concept assumes that both physicians and patients are experts; physicians in diagnostic and therapeutic procedures, patients by their personal experience. Van der Eijk examined how patient-centeredness could be defined, measured and improved in Parkinson care. Patients with Parkinson's disease(PD) become progressively disabled due to a mixture of cognitive, emotional and motor symptoms. Given the complex nature of the disease, delivering patient-centered care to PD patients is challenging. Preferably, Parkinson care is provided by a collaborative team of physicians, nurses, psychosocial caregivers and allied health experts. 'Patient-centeredness' implies that patients are invited to participate within this team. PD patients currently assume a passive role in healthcare, partially because this is the traditional approach, but also because they lack the tools to self-manage their condition. Van der Eijk found out that PD patients experience a lack of collaboration between their healthcare professionals. Additionally, patients urgently call for more and personally tailored information as well as emotional support to cope better with their disease. Van der Eijk collected patient-experiences in the Netherlands, Canada and the United States and evaluated regional multidisciplinary healthcare networks and online health communities. These innovations may improve the patient-centeredness of care and enhance communication among health professionals and patients, and support coordination of care across institutions. A personal health community is a private community governed by individual patients. Apart from the patient, participants include the caregiver and one or more (ideally all) health professionals involved. Patients favor the possibility to interact with their health professionals for emotional support and to obtain medical information. When technically well facilitated, the concept stimulates active patient involvement in their own health and healthcare.
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 | 0.010 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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".