Comparison of health literacy levels of patients applying to adult emergency department and primary care clinic
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Aim: Since its introduction in the 1970s, health literacy (HL) has gained increasing significance in public health and health services, becoming even more crucial today. HL is particularly important in our country, where the number of patients in emergency departments has risen.This study aimed to evaluate and compare HL levels between patients in the emergency department (ED) green area and primary care clinic (PCC). Material and Methods: This single-center, prospective, observational survey study included outpatients classified as Canadian triage levels 4-5 and patients over 18 years old who visited the PCC. Patients were divided into subgroups based on education, occupation, and income-expense status. Results: The median age of the 480 patients included in the study was 36 years, with 205 (42.7%) being male. Of the cases, 169 (35.2%) visited the PCC, and 311 (64.8%) visited the ED. The number of ED visits among primary school graduates was significantly higher than PCC visits, while the number of PCC visits among bachelor's and master's degree graduates was significantly higher than ED visits (p < 0.001, p < 0.001, p = 0.020, respectively). There was no statistically significant difference in the health literacy index score (p = 0.147) between PCC and ED visits. However, the mean scores for accessing health-related information (p = 0.021) and understanding health-related information (p = 0.019) were significantly lower for those who visited the ED. Conclusions: To reduce the burden on EDs, our society should be educated on the importance of utilizing primary health care services regardless of education level, occupation, and income, alongside improving HL levels.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".