Pandemic reflection: Significant change is needed to tap into the power of primary care during times of crisis
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Context: As a front-line resource, primary care could function as an indispensable health system resource during pandemic crises. However, throughout COVID-19, Canada's primary care providers expressed concern over their ability to respond. This study investigates factors related to these concerns, suggesting key areas for future primary care system development. Objective: Assess specific areas where robust, well-supported primary care could contribute significantly to the health system's pandemic response, & factors that may have prevented it from doing so. Study Design: Online, self-report survey administered over 3 weeks, April-May, 2021. Survey invitations sent via email, with three reminders following initial contact. Setting or Dataset: The College of Family Physicians of Canada (CFPC) membership list was used to reach family physicians in diverse practice settings in all Canadian provinces and territories. Population studied: All active CFPC family physician (FP) members were included. Most FPs in Canada are CFPC members; 39,991 FPs received survey invitations; 3,409 replied, for an overall response rate of 9%. Outcome Measures: Percent of FP engaged in systems level, pandemic response measures, including: 1) reporting COVID-19 cases to public health authorities, 2) identifying priority patients for vaccination, 3) participating in COVID-19 task forces, & 4) contributing to COVID-19 research/clinical studies. Results: Overall, one-third (34%) of FPs say that family practices in their region report COVID-19 cases to public health authorities. Most FPs (55%) say that their practices have not been asked to identify priority cases for COVID-19 vaccination. Less than 1-in-5 (19%) FPs have been involved in COVID-19 advisory/planning committees, task forces or groups. Very few FPs (6%) contribute to COVID-19 research/clinical studies. Half of FPs (50%) are highly concerned about the lack of clarity from government regarding FP response to the pandemic. These findings vary across jurisdictions and practice/remuneration models. Conclusions: Canada's primary care system has not been adequately engaged in important COVID-19 response measures, including monitoring viral spread in the population, pandemic planning, vaccination roll out, and therapeutic research. Practice models and remuneration arrangements are related to primary care's responsiveness to the COVID-19 pandemic,& should be considered in future primary care health system development.
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 | 0,008 | 0,021 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,007 | 0,005 |
| Communication savante | 0,009 | 0,007 |
| Science ouverte | 0,002 | 0,008 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,005 | 0,009 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,018 | 0,004 |
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 ».