Professional contacts between doctors and social workers : a comparative survey of awareness and utilization of services, Vancouver, B.C., 1963.
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
In most modern communities, a large array of health services and welfare services are at least potentially available to all. Whether any individual or family receives a co-ordinated balanced welfare service, however, depends on many factors, including the extent to which two "helping professions", social work (as represented by social workers employed in various agencies) and medicine (as represented by general practitioners) know of each other's services and actually work together. The present study is a preliminary survey of the situation. As background, the impact of industrialization and urbanization on the development and contemporary roles of medicine and social work is reviewed. Information for this qualitative study was obtained through questionnaires submitted to sample groups of doctors and social workers. The purpose of the questionnaires was to gain some definition of the concept of "reciprocal awareness and utilization". In each case, the attempt was made to evaluate the knowledge one profession had of the other's role and function, and the extent to which this knowledge was used for the benefit of the population they served. In addition, directors of three key agencies were interviewed to determine their views on the role of the agency in furthering reciprocal awareness and utilization. The findings of the study indicate that a fairly typical situation is that the doctor's awareness of the social worker's role and function is limited and outdated. Social workers, in general, are more aware of the doctor's role and function, but on the other hand, their expectations are somewhat high and perhaps unrealistic. As indicated by the test of referral patterns, the utilization of each other's resources is minimal. The doctor's utilization of social work skills and resources is hampered by two facts: (a) patients have mixed feelings about being referred, and (b) doctors believe that agency policy and procedure is ineffective and frustrating. There is evidence that besides not recognizing a modern social worker's role and function, general practitioners appear to underestimate social and emotional factors in illness. Reciprocity, the main concept evaluated in this study, is minimal. Both doctors and social workers recognized that there are gains to be realized from more co-operation and some methods are recommended; but the low degree of reciprocal awareness and utilization existing between doctors and social workers must be tackled by recognizing that rather than lack of communication, faulty and hostile communication is the issue. This does not necessarily apply to medicine and social work in institutional settings and this difference demands further exploration.
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 | 0,001 | 0,005 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,002 | 0,004 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,003 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,001 | 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 ».