Notice bibliographique
Résumé
In recent years, the health and well-being of medical students and doctors in Australia has been extensively discussed and written about by a wide range of organisations including the Australian Medical Students Association, the Royal Australian College of General Practitioners and the Australian Medical Association. (1) This has resulted in some excellent documents that provide detailed advice to students and medical practitioners about how to maintain health and wellbeing. Over the same period of time, the long standing state--based [dagger] doctors' health advisory services (DHASs) have joined forces to establish the Australasian Doctors' Health Network (which also includes the New Zealand DHAS) and a conference on doctors health is convened every second year. Available data indicate that Australian medical students and doctors experience similar degrees of stress, burnout and anxiety as do their counterparts in other developed nations. Mental illness including depression and suicide, alcohol and other substance abuse, and other illnesses associated with potential impairment also occur with similar frequency. (2) Thus the work of medical regulators and doctors' health services in Australia is likely to be very similar to that of their Canadian counterparts. Despite the existence of firm ethical guidance to doctors from both the Medical Board of Australia (3) and the Australian Medical Association, (4) approximately 50% of Australian doctors do not have an identified general practitioner (family doctor) and many choose to self-diagnose, self-prescribe or self-refer for investigations or to specialists. (5) Under the health care system (Medicare), self-referral by doctors unfortunately is permitted. While medical schools are now placing greater emphasis on educating students about their professional responsibilities in regard to their own health and the need for doctors to have their own general practitioner, it is too early to determine if this is having any impact on behaviour. Doctors' health advisory services exist in every state and territory. (6) These organisations are staffed predominantly on an honorary basis and provide telephone advice and triage for distressed doctors and medical students. Advice can be sought anonymously and the service is confidential. The exceptions are in Victoria and South Australia. In Victoria in 2001, the then Medical Practitioners Board, in partnership with the Victorian Branch of the Australian Medical Association, established the Victorian Doctor's Health Program (VDHP), funded fully from annual medical registration renewal fees but managed at arm's length from the Medical Practitioners Board by an independent board. (7) Partly based on similar programs that have long existed in North America, VDHP provides free assistance to doctors and medical students via face to face triage and referral, care and monitoring agreements, support for families, rehabilitation and re-entry to work, education for the profession and research. More recently, South Australia has established a different service mode1. (8) This relatively stable situation has been disturbed by the introduction in July 2010 of a new scheme for the registration of all health professionals. Under this scheme, the Medical Board of Australia has assumed the role previously played by the state and territory medical boards. The new scheme was five years in the making, commencing with a 435 page report commissioned by the Council of Australian Governments and prepared by the Australian Productivity Commission in 2005 entitled Australia's Health Workforce. (9) This led to the establishment of the Australian Health Practitioners Regulation Agency (AHPRA) (10) covering the registration of all health professionals and the accreditation of providers of health education and training. The new is known informally as the national law but its formal title is the Health Practitioner Regulation National Law. …
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 | 0,004 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,001 | 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 ».