MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W119724266

Primary care ads send the wrong message

2006· article· en· W119724266 sur OpenAlexaboutno aff
Cal Gutkin

Notice bibliographique

RevueEurope PMC (PubMed Central) · 2006
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineHealth Professions
ThématiquePrimary Care and Health Outcomes
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésGovernment (linguistics)General partnershipNewspaperPrimary careMedicinePublic relationsHealth careSubsidyFamily medicinePolitical scienceNursingLaw
DOInon disponible

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

A number of our members have expressed concern that the recently completed national TV, radio, and newspaper ad campaign promoting primary care made no mention of family doctors, leaving an impression that patients should seek their primary medical care from “teams” of health professionals rather than from family physicians. These ads were part of a government-subsidized Primary Health Care Transition Fund project, the stated objective of which was to increase the public’s understanding of primary care and primary care teams. Before launching the campaign, project leaders met with the College of Family Physicians of Canada to seek our comments and endorsement or partnership. While we support many primary care renewal initiatives, including appropriate team approaches, we believed this campaign ignored the essential roles of Canada’s family physicians. Because the strategy was developed before we were approached, and because no changes were made following our discussions, we decided not to endorse or partner in the campaign. We considered expressing our concerns about the ads publicly, but concluded that doing so would only bring more attention to them. We were also advised that our protests could lead to misinterpretation of our position, painting us as opponents of many of the progressive primary care strategies—including appropriately defined “teams”—that we in fact support. For the first year that these ads ran, neither the public nor physicians seemed very aware of them. Through February, March, and April of 2006, however, the campaign intensified and became more visible. Many family doctors were rightly upset, though how much the ads affected the public remains questionable. Our informal canvassing indicated that most people were either unaware of the campaign or did not know what the message was supposed to be. The CFPC’s response to both this and other government initiatives (such as Ontario’s ads suggesting that nurse practitioners are available to diagnose, treat, and prescribe as doctors do) is manifold. Our most pointed concern is directed toward governments, which must be made to understand that promotion of new primary care models is fine, as long as it is presented without ignoring or demeaning the role of family physicians. The CFPC supports our colleagues in other health professions in their goal of gaining greater understanding and respect for their roles on health care teams. We do not, however, support models that promote others as substitutes for family physicians as the main providers and coordinators of medical care. Evidence shows that better health outcomes are directly related to patients’ having a primary care physician.1 As well, in every public survey, nearly all Canadians clearly indicate they highly value family doctors and want better access to them. The CFPC and its Chapters believe it is time for the public, governments, medical schools, and all other health care professions to acknowledge family medicine as the special discipline it is, with a unique role and value equal to every other medical specialty. We are lobbying for greater practice supports for family doctors, including increased remuneration to eliminate the inappropriate gaps between the incomes of family physicians and those of other specialists. We have established family medicine interest groups in every medical school in Canada and introduced medical student leadership awards and scholarships. We have a task force looking at changing undergraduate curriculum to ensure increased and appropriate roles for family physicians in medical school education. The negative effects of the poorly conceived messages found in the recent primary care ad campaign are relevant to both practising family doctors and medical students. The experienced physicians see these ads as a betrayal of the excellent care they have provided for Canadians for decades. Medical students considering their future careers see these ads as dismissing the relevance of family medicine and making it seem to be of lesser value than other specialties. If these messages reduce the number of current and future physicians in family practice, then the long-term goals of Canada’s health care system shared by all—including governments—will become unachievable. To reach those goals, we support family physicians both in traditional and in new and emerging models of primary care, including team models of care. Fortunately, despite the recent ad campaigns, the past 2 years have seen the start of a turnaround, with increases in the number of medical graduates selecting family medicine. During this time many of our federal and provincial governments have subsidized projects and partnered with our College on initiatives intended to increase support for family medicine. The CFPC appreciates this and will continue to work with governments and the other health professions to help them better understand the essential role that family doctors must play in the future of health care in Canada.

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction machine sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,010
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,052
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Sans objet · Signal consensuel: Sans objet
GenreSignal candidat: Commentaire · Signal consensuel: Commentaire
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,066
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,221

Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0100,052
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0010,001
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0010,001
Bibliométrie0,0020,001
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0080,004
Communication savante0,0100,006
Science ouverte0,0010,003
Intégrité de la recherche0,0270,022
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0660,040

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,027
Tête enseignante GPT0,307
Écart entre enseignants0,279 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.

Les modèles n’ont appliqué aucune catégorie : rien dans la taxonomie ne correspondait à ce travail.
Devis d'étudeSans objet
Domainenon disponible
GenreCommentaire

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations0
Publié2006
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueEurope PMC (PubMed Central)Même sujetPrimary Care and Health OutcomesTravaux en français237 207