The experience of primary health care users: a rural-urban paradox.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: We sought to assess the care experience of primary health care users, to determine whether users' assessments of their experience vary according to the geographical context in which services are obtained, and to determine whether the observed variations are consistent across all components of the care experience. METHODS: We examined the experience of 3389 users of primary care in 5 administrative regions in Quebec, focusing on accessibility, continuity, responsiveness and reported use of health services. RESULTS: We found significant variations in users' assessments of the specific components of the care experience. Access to primary health care received positive evaluations least frequently, and continuity of information received the approval of the highest percentage of users. We also found significant variations among geographical contexts. Positive assessments of the care experience were more frequently made by users in remote rural settings; they became progressively less frequent in near-urban rural and near-urban settings, and were found least often in urban settings. We observed these differences in almost all of the components of the care experience. CONCLUSION: Given the relatively greater supply of services in urban areas, this analysis has revealed a rural-urban paradox in the care experience of primary health care users.
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 | 0.005 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".