Alcohol, Isolation, and Access to Treatment: Family Physician Experiences of Alcohol Consumption and Access to Health Care in Rural British Columbia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this project was to study the experiences of physicians who treat persons with alcohol-attributed diseases in rural areas of British Columbia, Canada. METHOD: A cross-sectional survey was distributed to primary health care physicians that had a family practice in a designated rural community using the Rural Coordination Centre of British Columbia's community isolation rating system. Data were collected through a mail and online survey sent to primary health care physicians. Purposeful sampling was used to select participants that had a primary health care practice in a designated rural community. RESULTS: Surveys were returned by 22% of potential participants (N = 67) that had an average of 15.8 years in family practice. The majority of participants (95.4%) reported that alcohol had a negative impact on population health, and physicians expressed particular concern for alcohol consumption in relation to mental health (85.1%) and physical illness (82.1%). Most participants had referred patients out of the community for treatment; however, 76.4% reported difficulty with referrals, including long wait-lists, limited services, and issues related to transportation and leaving the community for substance use treatment. CONCLUSION: Rural physicians showed an awareness and concern for alcohol consumption in their community, but they also reported difficulties referring patients for substance use treatment. Additional study is required to understand how to improve the continuity of care provided to persons with alcohol-related issues in rural British Columbia.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".