Health promotion activity in primary care: performance of models and associated factors.
Pourquoi ce travail est dans la base
Une base qui oublie comment elle a trouvé un travail ne peut pas être vérifiée. Voici les voies qui ont admis celui-ci.
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
BACKGROUND: Lifestyle behaviours have significant health and economic consequences. Primary care providers play an important role in promoting healthy behaviours. We compared the performance of primary care models in delivering health promotion and identified practice factors associated with its delivery. METHODS: Surveys were conducted in 137 randomly selected primary care practices in 4 primary care models in Ontario, Canada: 35 community health centres, 35 fee-for-service practices, 35 family health networks and 32 health service organizations. A total of 4861 adult patients who were visiting their family practice participated in the study. Qualitative nested case studies were also conducted at 2 practices per model. A 7-item question was used to evaluate health promotion. The main outcome was whether at least 1 of the 7 health promotion items was discussed at the survey visit. Multilevel logistic regressions were used to compare the models and determine performance-related practice factors. RESULTS: The rate of health promotion was significantly higher in community health centres than in the other models (the unadjusted difference ranged between 8% and 13%). This finding persisted after controlling for patient and family physician profiles. Factors independently positively associated with health promotion were as follows: reason for visit (for a general checkup: adjusted odds ratio [AOR] 3.34, 95% confidence interval [CI] 2.81-3.97; for care for a chronic disease: AOR 2.03, 95% CI 1.69-2.43), patients having and seeing their own provider (for those not: AOR 0.58, 95% CI 0.43-0.78), number of nurses in the practice (AOR 1.07, 95% CI 1.02-1.12), percentage of female family physicians (AOR 1.38, 95% CI 1.15-1.66), smaller physician panel size (AOR 0.92, 95% CI 0.85-1.01) and longer booking interval (AOR 1.03, 95% CI 1.01-1.04). Providers in interdisciplinary practices viewed health promotion as an integral part of primary care, whereas other providers emphasized the role of relational continuity in effective health promotion. CONCLUSION: We have identified several attributes associated with health promotion delivery. These results may assist practice managers and policy-makers in modifying practice attributes to improve health promotion in primary care.
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.
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,002 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
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.
score_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