MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W2890201344 · doi:10.22605/rrh4514

Scope of practice of family medicine graduates who completed a rural versus urban program

2018· article· en· W2890201344 sur OpenAlex
Douglas Myhre, Olga Szafran, Shirley Schipper, James A. Dickinson, Fred Janke

Pourquoi ce travail est dans la base

Une base qui oublie comment elle a trouvé un travail ne peut pas être vérifiée. Voici les voies qui ont admis celui-ci.

affAu moins un auteur déclare une institution canadienne dans l'instantané OpenAlex épinglé.
aboutLe titre ou le résumé porte un signal canadien du lexique géographique.

Notice bibliographique

RevueRural and Remote Health · 2018
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineHealth Professions
ThématiqueGlobal Health Workforce Issues
Établissements canadiensFoothills Medical CentreUniversity of AlbertaUniversity of Calgary
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésScope of practiceFamily medicineMedicineRural areaEconomic shortageScope (computer science)PopulationWorkforceHealth careMedical educationEnvironmental health

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

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.

Prédiction distillée sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni 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.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,001
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Sans objet · Signal consensuel: aucune
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,781
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,974

Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0010,001
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0010,000
Bibliométrie0,0000,001
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0010,001
Communication savante0,0000,000
Science ouverte0,0000,000
Intégrité de la recherche0,0000,000
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0000,000

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.

Tête enseignante Opus0,091
Tête enseignante GPT0,481
Écart entre enseignants0,390 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_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 découle