The Population-Centered Medical Model: A Theory of Practice for Public Health and Preventive Medicine
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Introduction\nPublic health physicians occupy a unique place in the fields of both medicine and public health. Trained in each field, and often holding positions of authority in public health systems, public health physicians are sometimes challenged to identify their roles in either field of practice. Public health physicians work to achieve population health, but there has been limited theoretical development in this field of practice. Objectives\nThe objective of this research was to develop an empirical theory of practice for public health physicians. Methods\nA literature review of current practice models applicable to public health physicians was performed. A discourse analysis of Chief Medical Officer of Health (CMOH) media briefings during the COVID-19 pandemic was conducted to understand the socially constructed public-facing identities of public health physicians. A Grounded Theory study of practice was conducted by interviewing public health physician participants. Findings\nCurrent practice models for medicine do not account for the work of public health physicians, whose ‘patients’ are populations. Practice models for public health do not account for the unique roles and responsibilities of physicians in public health. The literature review affirmed that there are no published models of practice that are specific to public health physician practice. From the discourse analysis, it was found that Chief Medical Officers of Health (CMOHs) construct a social identity that is recognizably medical by virtue of its technical and relational aspects. The implication of this social identity is that CMOHs view themselves as physicians, and further that they also view populations as patients. The findings of the grounded theory study led to the development of a theory of practice for public health physicians, the Population-Centered Medical Model (POP-CMM). In this model, public health physicians bring values, knowledge, and stances into the practice of public health medicine. Public health physicians view populations as their patients, and the method of practice involves diagnosis and intervention that is focused on systems and prevention. This process of practice relies on knowledge sharing and relationship building between public health physicians and populations. Conclusion\nThe POP-CMM forms a theoretical grounding for the training and practice of public health medicine in Canada. Taken with the findings of the discourse analysis, this inquiry reveals that the practice of public health medicine (and perhaps medicine in general) is constituted by a set of core processes that are enacted across a range of discursive settings. These findings have implications for conceptualizing competence in medical training and practice, as well as for progress toward a general model of medical practice across a spectrum of patients from n=1 to n=N. Further research could demonstrate its transferability to the practice of public health physicians in other countries, to the practice of other professionals in public health, and to the practice of medicine in general. Keywords (alphabetical order)\nDiscourse Analysis, Grounded Theory, Medical Practice, Medicine, Model, Physicians, Population Health, Public Health, Public Health Practice, Theory
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 | 0,026 | 0,019 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,006 | 0,005 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,006 | 0,055 |
| Communication savante | 0,015 | 0,015 |
| Science ouverte | 0,004 | 0,007 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,007 | 0,007 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,005 | 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 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 ».