MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W102725761

General Practitioners at the Deep End: The experience and views of general practitioners working in the most severely deprived areas of Scotland.

2012· article· en· W102725761 on OpenAlexaff
Graham Watt, Georgina Brown, John H. Budd, Peter G Cawston, Margaret Craig, Robert D. Jamieson, Susan Langridge, Andrew Lyon, Stewart W Mercer, Catriona Morton, Anne E. Mullin, Jim O'Neil, Euan Paterson, Petra Sambale, Graham Watt, Andrea Williamson

Bibliographic record

VenuePubMed · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicPrimary Care and Health Outcomes
Canadian institutionsCentre for Global Health Research
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGeneral partnershipConsistency (knowledge bases)Flexibility (engineering)Best practicePopulationHealth careGeneral practicePublic relationsPopulation healthMedicineNursingPolitical sciencePublic healthManagementFamily medicineComputer scienceLawEconomics
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This Occasional Paper captures the experience and views of general practitioners (GPs) at the Deep End, comprising GPs serving the 100 most deprived practice populations in Scotland. The paper builds on a series of articles that were published in the British Journal of General Practice in 2011. Deep End practices are at the front line of the NHS in addressing the health and healthcare problems of severely deprived communities. Although they have substantial knowledge, experience and authority, they have largely been neglected in discussions, reports and policies about inequalities in health. By increasing the volume, quality and consistency of care provided for individual patients, and harnessing the intrinsic strengths of general practice – including coverage, continuity, coordination, flexibility, long-term relationships and trust – general practices in very deprived areas can improve population health and narrow inequalities. There are two important barriers. The first is the inverse care law, best understood as the result of NHS policies that restrict access to care based on need, and which is manifest every day as the shortage of time within consultations to address patients’ needs. Second, there are dysfunctional links with the wide range of other professions and services, whose contributions and partnership are needed to deliver needs-based care. There is no single or short-term solution. A sustained and integrated package of measures is needed, combining at least six key elements. Deep End practices need more time and capacity to address unmet need. Best use needs to be made of serial encounters over long periods. Practices need to be better connected with other professions and services as hubs of local health systems. There need to be better connections between practices across the front line, following the example of the Deep End Project. The front line needs to be better informed and supported by NHS organisations. Leadership needs to be developed and supported at practice and area level for all of these activities. The NHS should be at its best where it is needed most. Otherwise, the delivery of effective health care will widen rather than narrow health inequalities. Deep End practices can lead the way.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.014
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.093
Threshold uncertainty score0.185

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.014
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0110.008
Scholarly communication0.0060.004
Open science0.0020.010
Research integrity0.0040.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.091
GPT teacher head0.377
Teacher spread0.286 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations42
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePubMedSame topicPrimary Care and Health OutcomesFrench-language works237,207