Disrespect, harassment, and abuse: all in a day's work for family physicians.
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
OBJECTIVE: To examine harassment and abusive encounters between family physicians and their patients or colleagues in the workplace. DESIGN: Qualitative case study using semistructured interviews. SETTING: Province of New Brunswick. PARTICIPANTS: Forty-eight family physicians from across the province. METHODS: A collective case-study approach was developed, with 24 cases of 2 individuals per case. Cases were selected based on sex, location (urban or rural), language (French or English), and number of years since medical school graduation (< 10 years, 10 to 20 years, or > 20 years). Physicians were interviewed in either French or English. Participants were recruited using the College of Physicians and Surgeons of New Brunswick's physician directory. Based on the rates of response and participation, some cases were overrepresented, while others were not completed. All interviews were audiotaped, transcribed verbatim, and analyzed thematically using a categorical aggregation approach. A coding scheme for the thematic analysis was developed by the research team before the interviews were transcribed. MAIN FINDINGS: Although the original intent of this study was to examine the work environment of family physicians in light of the increasing number of women entering the profession, harassment and abusive encounters in the workplace emerged as a main theme. These encounters ranged from minor to severe. Minor abusive encounters included disrespectful behaviour and verbal threats by patients, their families, and occasionally colleagues. More severe forms of harassment involved physical threats, physical encounters, and stalking. Demanding patients, such as heavy drug users, were often seen as threatening. Location of practice, years in practice, and sex of the physician seemed to affect abusive encounters--young, female, rural physicians appeared to experience such encounters most often. CONCLUSION: Abusive encounters in the workplace are concerning. It is essential to address these issues of workplace harassment and abuse in order to protect physician safety and avoid workplace dissatisfaction. Abusive encounters might push family physicians to leave clinical practice prematurely or refuse to work in higher-risk environments, such as emergency departments or rural areas.
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 enseignantsNi 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.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,003 | 0,006 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,009 | 0,006 |
| Communication savante | 0,002 | 0,002 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,003 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,002 | 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 découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».