Reassuring and managing patients with concerns about swine flu: Qualitative interviews with callers to NHS Direct
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: During the early stages of the 2009 swine flu (influenza H1N1) outbreak, the large majority of patients who contacted the health services about the illness did not have it. In the UK, the NHS Direct telephone service was used by many of these patients. We used qualitative interviews to identify the main reasons why people approached NHS Direct with concerns about swine flu and to identify aspects of their contact which were reassuring, using a framework approach. Methods: 33 patients participated in semi-structured interviews. All patients had telephoned NHS Direct between 11 and 14 May with concerns about swine flu and had been assessed as being unlikely to have the illness. Results: Reasons for seeking advice about swine flu included: the presence of unexpectedly severe flu-like symptoms; uncertainties about how one can catch swine flu; concern about giving it to others; pressure from friends or employers; and seeking 'peace of mind.' Most participants found speaking to NHS Direct reassuring or useful. Helpful aspects included: having swine flu ruled out; receiving an alternative explanation for symptoms; clarification on how swine flu is transmitted; and the perceived credibility of NHS Direct. No-one reported anything that had increased their anxiety and only one participant subsequently sought additional advice about swine flu from elsewhere. Conclusions: Future major incidents involving other forms of chemical, biological or radiological hazards may also cause large numbers of unexposed people to seek health advice. Our data suggest that providing telephone triage and information is helpful in such instances, particularly where advice can be given via a trusted, pre-existing service.
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 | 0.018 | 0.049 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.009 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".