Skjólstæðingsmiðuð þjónusta : þróun matstækis og starfsemi á geðdeild FSA
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Interaction between health care staff and clients should reflect mutual respect and equality and clients' experience and knowledge is of great value when developing and designing services.Client centred approach is essential when establishing service programs that promote active client participation.The purpose of the study was to adapt and develop a selfreport instrument that measures to what extend the service of inpatient mental health care is client centred.The research was conducted in three steps, in collaboration with Akureyri University Hospital (AUH).The first step included translation of the Canadian Client centred rehabilitation questionnaire and further validation and development using data from thirteen cognitive interviews taken with 11 mental health clients.Data from thirty questionnaires completed by clients at the end of inpatient care was used in steps two and three.Continuing development of the instrument took place in step two with calculation of internal reliability and in step three services of AUH was described.Results of the cognitive interviews lead to considerable changes in wording and number of questions of the instrument.They also turned out to be a successful method to develop the questionnaire and gave service users an opportunity to comment on it.Internal reliability of the final version was 0.93 and 0.70-0.86 for the conceptually derived subscales.The instrument is reliable and can be used to describe inpatient mental health services.Results showed that inpatient mental health services in AUH reflect many of the basic components of client centred practice.However, it seems that more emphasis needs to be placed on evaluation of outcomes from clients´ perspective and include family and close friends to a greater extent.Attention should be drawn to different needs of clients at various life stages.
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 | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.127 | 0.048 |
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".