RESPECT from specialists
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
OBJECTIVE To explore potential solutions to the challenge of gaining more respect for FPs from other specialists. DESIGN An original Web-based qualitative survey, from May 27, 2004, to January 5, 2005, involving 5 rounds. SETTING Province of Alberta. PARTICIPANTS A sample of 28 Alberta FPs of differing experience, locations, and types of practices. METHODS Purposeful maximum variation sampling was used to identify a heterogeneous sample of FPs. The Delphi technique was used with an anonymous, iterative, Web-based survey to develop consensus among participating FPs. The first 2 rounds of the survey were designed to generate rich, thick descriptions of the rewards and challenges FPs experienced; the last 3 rounds were designed to refine this information and identify potential solutions and support that key organizations could provide. This information was collapsed into themes using thematic content analysis and reviewed by a working group; with input from the working group we decided to focus our analysis on the challenge of gaining respect from specialists. MAIN FINDINGS Each round yielded an 86% to 96% response rate, from which 11 key challenges were identified including “respect from specialists.” Suggestions of potential solutions to gaining more respect included the need to create and develop relationships between FPs and other specialists and to support each other’s roles; to raise the profile of family medicine in universities and teaching hospitals; to change negative attitudes by promoting the expertise and role of family medicine to others; to demonstrate and maintain a comprehensive skill set; and to address intraprofessional inequities and provide appropriate incentives. Participants suggested roles that organizations could play; for example, universities and medical schools could avoid making negative comments about family practice, reward FPs involved in teaching, and decentralize medical education to provide more experience in community settings and environments that model interactions between specialists and FPs. Organizations could recognize and promote the role that FPs play in the health care system, seek their input into decisions involving primary care, and move toward equitable and fair remuneration. CONCLUSION Perceived lack of respect toward FPs from some of their specialist colleagues might be reflective of issues that go beyond family physician–specialist interaction. Solutions will likely require the involvement of academic centres and other organizations.
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 | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,001 |
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 ».