QUALICOPC (Quality and Costs of Primary Care) Canada : a focus on the aspects of primary care most highly rated by current patients of primary care practices
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.
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
This Pan-Canadian report describes patient and physician perspectives regarding current performance \nof primary care in each province based on data collected as part of the Quality and Costs of Primary \nCare (QUALICOPC) study. The QUALICOPC study is an international study of quality and costs \nof primary care in 34 countries. This report describes results from the data collected in Canada. It \nincludes only data collected from patients and physicians in primary care practices that provide \ncomprehensive primary care. \nTwo patient surveys were conducted as part of the study; one that asked patients about the importance \nof various aspects of primary care and the other about patients’ experiences with primary care. This \nreport focuses on aspects of primary care that respondents to patient surveys (distributed during visits \nto primary care physicians) identified as very important aspects of their primary care experience. \nPrimary care physicians from all Canadian provinces were asked to participate in the QUALICOPC \nstudy by a research team in each province. In general, one physician from each primary care \npractice was invited to participate (23 practices, primarily in Quebec, had more than one physician \nrespondent). Physicians who agreed to participate were sent a package containing four different \nsurveys regarding: the practice setting ; the services provided in the practice ; patient values and patient experience. \nIn each practice, the physician was asked to complete the survey about the services provided and \nany staff member could complete the practice setting survey. One patient was expected to respond to \nthe patient values survey and nine other patients were expected to respond to the patient experience \nsurvey. Physicians returned completed surveys to the research team in each province. \nA total of 8,332 patients of 810 primary care physicians in 785 practices across Canada responded \nto the surveys. A total of 1,160 completed the patient values survey and a different sample of \n7,172 patients completed the patient experience survey. Two-thirds (67%) of participating patients \nwere female, and three-quarters (74%) were in good to very good health . The median age of patient \nrespondents was 53. The majority (59%) of participating patients had a post-secondary education, \nwere fluent or native speaking in at least one of Canada’s official languages (80%) and were born in \nCanada (86%).To our knowledge, this is the largest study to date of patient values and patient experience regarding \nprimary care in Canada in terms of the number of patients. The results reported provide important \ninsight into the experience and values of primary care of the population sampled (as described above): \npatients who had access to a primary care physician, the majority of whom were in good to very good \nhealth. Whether the results reported herein and the associated reported policy implications would \nextend to other population groups, such those who do not have regular access to a primary care \npractice, requires further study.
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 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 | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 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 découle