The Experience of GP Surgeons in Western Canada: The Influence of Interprofessional Relationships in Training and Practice
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Challenges to the sustainability of rural healthcare in Canada demands innovative solutions to human resources shortages in rural communities.One solution is to support generalists with enhanced skills to meet some of the surgical needs of rural residents. Despite favourable outcomes, generalist surgical care is becoming a vanishing option due to the lack of interprofessional support garnered in education and practice.Methods and Findings: Data were gathered through semi-structured interviews with 28 general practitioner surgeons (GPS) face-to-face and 12 GPS over the telephone. Interview participants articulated four themes, including their beliefs about GP surgery, the context of interprofessional relationships between general surgeons and GPS, and qualities of and barriers to interprofessional practice.Conclusions: The importance of establishing positive interprofessional relationships within healthcare in relation to quality of care, outcomes, and system efficiency demands addressing interprofessional challenges at a macro (systems) and micro (personal interaction) level.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.014 | 0.026 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".