Results from the OurCare Survey: Public Perspectives on Primary Care in Canada
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Context: Canada’s primary care system is in crisis and in urgent need of reform. Reforms should be informed by patients, caregivers and the public but little research has been done to understand their perspectives. Objective: We conducted a national survey to understand people’s experiences with primary care and their values, needs, and preferences. The survey is the first phase of OurCare, an initiative to engage the public on the future of primary care in Canada. Study Design and Analysis: Our anonymous, bilingual survey was distributed across Canada between September and October 2022 in partnership with Vox Pop Labs, an organization that aims to enhance democratic participation. Vox Pop Labs sent a unique link to 63,552 people on their proprietary panel, following up with two personalized reminders. An open survey link was also promoted through traditional and social media. Only completed questionnaires were analyzed. Survey responses from the two links were combined and weighted via iterative proportional fitting (raking) according to estimates from the 2021 Statistics Canada Census to ensure respondents roughly reflected the demographics of Canada. Setting or Dataset: Canada. Population Studied: Adults aged 18 years and over residing in Canada. Outcome Measures: Experience with primary care; views on most important attributes of care; experiences and views on walk-in clinics, virtual care, team-based care, access to their own medical data; and willingness to re-imagine primary care. Results: We received 9279 completed surveys. Overall, 22% of respondents reported not having a family doctor or nurse practitioner (NP) but there were large regional differences (Ontario 13%, Quebec 31%, Atlantic region 31%). The attribute of primary care ranked as most important was that their primary care provider “know me as a person and consider all the factors that affect my health”. 90% of people felt comfortable or very comfortable getting support from another member of the team if their family doctor or NP recommended it. 91% were willing to see the same NP consistently for most things and 76% were willing to see any family doctor or NP in the practice if they had access to their records. Conclusions: Almost one quarter of people living in Canada reported not having a family doctor or NP. Respondents were generally open to new ways of organizing primary care but there was stronger agreement for proposals that maintained relational continuity with a single clinician.
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 | 0,003 | 0,012 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,002 | 0,008 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,006 | 0,002 |
| Communication savante | 0,004 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,003 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,006 | 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 ».