Scope of practice of family medicine graduates who completed a rural versus urban program
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
INTRODUCTION: In Canada, rural-based family medicine residency programs were established largely in response to a shortage of rural physicians and the perception that urban-based training programs were not meeting the needs of rural populations. Examinations of practice patterns of physicians trained in rural and urban programs are lacking. The purpose of this study was to compare the scope of practice of family medicine graduates who completed a rural versus an urban residency program, by practice location. METHODS: This was a cross-sectional, mail-out, questionnaire survey of 651 graduates who had completed the family medicine residency program at the University of Alberta or the University of Calgary, Alberta, Canada during 2006-2011. Rural program graduates lived and trained in regional settings and spent a considerable amount of time in smaller rural and remote communities for their clinical experience. The training of urban program graduates was primarily based in large urban settings and family medicine clinical experience was based in the community. Practice location (rural, urban) was classified by population size of the town/city at which physicians practiced. Scope of practice was ascertained through four domains of care: types of care, clinical procedures, practice settings and specific populations. Items within each domain were rated on a five-point scale (1='not part of practice', 5='element of core practice'). Mean rating scores for items in the domains of care were compared between urban and rural program graduates using ANOVA. RESULTS: A total of 307 (47.2%) graduates responded to the survey, of whom 173 were categorized as urban program graduates and 59 as rural program graduates. Overall, rural program graduates exhibited a broader scope of practice in providing postnatal care, intrapartum care/deliveries, palliative care, office-based and in-hospital clinical procedures, emergency care, in-hospital care, home visits, long-term care, and caring for rural and Aboriginal populations. Irrespective of program completed, those in a rural practice location had a broader scope of practice than those in urban practice. Urban and rural program graduates in rural locations tended to have a similar scope of practice. In urban locations, rural program graduates were more likely to include intrapartum care/deliveries as part of their clinical practice. Rural program graduates were more likely to practice in rural locations than urban program graduates. CONCLUSION: A combination of site of training (rural or urban program) and location of practice appear to work together to influence scope of practice of family physicians. A conceptual framework that summarizes the factors that have been reported to be associated with the scope of family practice is proposed.
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 | 0,004 |
| 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 | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,003 | 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 ».