MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W1421930097

Family medicine in Canada : Vision for the future

2005· article· en· W1421930097 sur OpenAlexaboutno aff
Cal Gutkin

Notice bibliographique

RevueEurope PMC (PubMed Central) · 2005
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineHealth Professions
ThématiquePrimary Care and Health Outcomes
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésPaceEconomic shortageFamily doctorsFamily medicineMedicineHealth careSisterPosition (finance)Government (linguistics)Public healthPolitical scienceNursingBusinessLawGeography
DOInon disponible

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

On November 25, 2004, at a national media conference, the College of Family Physicians of Canada released its position paper Family Medicine in Canada—Vision for the Future. The paper has been shared with our chapters, university departments of family medicine, governments, and sister medical and health care organizations across Canada. It will also be part of an international forum with delegates from Canada, the United States, the United Kingdom, Australia, New Zealand, and the Netherlands that will be looking at the future of family medicine around the world. The complete paper can be found on our website at http://www.cfpc.ca. Some of the key messages follow. Canada is facing a crisis. Timely access to health care services is getting progressively worse for Canadians. The single biggest reason for this is a severe shortage of health professionals, and high on the list of those in short supply are family doctors. More than 4 million Canadians cannot find family physicians to care for them1; those without family doctors are more vulnerable to prolonged wait times throughout the system1 and are less satisfied with the performance of all other health professionals, institutions, and governments.2 Canadians continue to place high value on the role of family physicians. More than two thirds indicate that family physicians are their most important caregivers.3 For family physicians, system support has not kept pace with public support. Because of changes in the health care environment, many family doctors have had to assume greater responsibility for increasingly acute and complex patients, with little health system understanding, acknowledgment, or remuneration for their changing role. Because of increased workloads in practices, their role in medical schools and hospitals has often been undermined. For many, trying to maintain a commitment to comprehensive, continuing care has become a major challenge. For medical students—our physicians of the future—the image of family medicine has been tarnished, and increasing numbers of them are turning their backs on the opportunity to become part of one of the most rewarding and satisfying branches of the medical profession. This must change. Family Medicine in Canada—Vision for the Future presents evidence of limited access, reviews public poll indicators of Canadians’ perceptions and preferences, discusses medical student and resident training challenges, and analyzes many factors related to these issues and opportunities that could be pursued. Among its 126 recommendations are the following. Access to care for patients must include patients’ perspectives, which means measuring wait times from when symptoms are first experienced not from the much later point of a visit to a specialist (specific strategies for promoting access for underserved populations are required). Access to medical care must recognize patients’ needs for personal, comprehensive, continuing care (including public health; illness prevention; and acute, chronic, and palliative care strategies) in a variety of settings. Access for patients must focus on the full continuum of care from family physicians to specialists and to shared care for chronic diseases. Health human resource planning must ensure a sustainable supply of family physicians through a process that promotes family medicine as an attractive choice for students, that accounts for the changing demographics and practice patterns of family physicians, and that provides sufficient family medicine residency positions. Future family physicians should be educated and trained in a system that encourages visible, credible, well supported roles for the discipline of family medicine and family physician teachers and researchers in our medical schools and teaching centres. Family medicine residency programs should produce graduates with the knowledge, skills, and attitudes that will enable them to provide comprehensive continuing care for patients in rural and urban communities across Canada. Innovation and quality in family medicine must be encouraged through support for family medicine research, strategies to transfer new ideas and knowledge into practice, and recognition for family physicians committed to lifelong learning. The value of family physicians must be actively promoted. Family medicine must be recognized as a discipline equal to all specialties in Canada, and the income gap between family physicians and other specialists must be addressed. Our system must support family doctors in their important roles as teachers, researchers, and caregivers for millions of Canadians. It is critical to restore and strengthen the role of Canada’s family physicians if we hope to ensure personal, comprehensive, continuing care for patients and families across Canada. It is equally important to support the new and expanding roles family doctors play as the link between advances in science and technology and day-to-day patient care. Their future role in helping patients understand and appropriately implement medical breakthroughs, along with their responsibility to deal with challenges in public and population health, will be immense. Family Medicine in Canada—Vision for the Future highlights concerns and recommends steps that must be taken by governments, medical schools, and health professionals to ensure that family doctors and family medicine will be the vital force that Canadians want at the centre of their health care system long into the future.

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)0,011
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,012
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 enseignants0,816
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,947

Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0110,012
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0010,001
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0010,001
Bibliométrie0,0030,004
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0270,011
Communication savante0,0140,007
Science ouverte0,0040,008
Intégrité de la recherche0,0150,015
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0210,003

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 Opus0,034
Tête enseignante GPT0,339
Écart entre enseignants0,304 · 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

Citations29
Publié2005
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

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