Practice patterns of graduates of 2- and 3-year family medicine programs: in Ontario, 1996 to 2004.
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
OBJECTIVE: To compare patterns of practice between graduates of core 2-year family medicine (FM) training programs and those completing an additional postgraduate year (PGY3) of training. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study using administrative data from the Ontario Health Insurance Plan. SETTING: Ontario. PARTICIPANTS: Graduates of Ontario FM residency programs from 1996 to 2002 who provided insured services in Ontario for 1 or more fiscal years between 1996 and 2004. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Proportion of physician years of service in which a minimum number of services were provided in each of the following categories: anesthesia, emergency medicine (EM), home visits, hospital visits, nursing home visits, intrapartum obstetrics, palliative care, office-only practice, and rural locations, as well as deciles for proportion of billings for emergency department work and "quasi-specialty" designations based on billing patterns. Results are stratified by type of training and years in practice. RESULTS: Graduates of PGY3 programs are significantly more likely to practise in a range of nonoffice settings than their counterparts who completed core 2-year FM training programs. Differences were the most marked in areas in which additional training had been undertaken, but also extended to other categories. There was no effect on the proportion practising in rural locations, unless the training was undertaken in a rural setting or in anesthesia. Physicians including EM in their practices were more likely to practise mostly or almost all EM if they had undertaken either EM programs or self-directed programs at non-northern training sites. Very few graduates of any type were classified as belonging to a quasi-specialty group, other than those who completed care of the elderly or palliative care (hospitalist) and anesthesia programs. CONCLUSION: Completion of a PGY3 program is strongly associated with increased participation in practice outside the office, particularly in the area of the training provided.
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 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 | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| 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 | 0,000 |
| 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 découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, 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 ».