Opinions and Attitudes of Patients to Differences in Health Care Systems in the Czech Republic and Germany
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Charles University in Prague, Faculty of Pharmacy in Hradci Králové Department of Social and Clinical Pharmacy Student: Klára Pousková Supervisor: PharmDr. Jan Kostřiba, Ph.D. Title of thesis: Opinions and Attitudes of Patients to Differences in Health Care Systems in the Czech Republic and Germany Key words: health care systems, extra care, questionnaire survey, Czech Republic, Germany Introduction: Czech Republic and Germany are two neighboring countries, located in central Europe, but there are number of differences between them. This thesis focuses on the differences in their health systems. Official statistics provide an objective view on the situation in both healthcare systems. Nevertheless those statistics don't include patient's opinions. A questionnaire survey was therefore created to include their point of view. Objectives: The aim of this thesis was to compare selected characteristics of the Czech and German health care systems, to recognize the major differences between them and to identify their greatest advantages and disadvantages. Methods: The survey was realized in selected towns in the Czech Republic and in Germany. All pharmacies in these towns were asked to take part. Patients were interviewed with adherence to the created questionnaire. The interview was conducted by the...
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 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".