Family practice residents' awareness of medical care costs in British Columbia.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Health economics continues to be an important issue, and past studies in the United States and Europe have found that physicians and physicians in training have a limited understanding of medical care costs. No medical care cost-awareness studies have been done in Canada. In this study, the costs of 46 commonly used diagnostic tests and therapeutics were determined, and family practice residents' awareness of these costs was assessed. METHODS: Ninety-seven first- and second-year residents of the University of British Columbia Family Practice Program were surveyed using the modified Dillman Total Design Method. Resident cost estimations were considered correct if within 25% or 50% of actual costs, and awareness was correlated with training location, gender, residency year, and importance ratings for ordering behavior. Degree of error was assessed by calculating median percent errors and confidence intervals for each therapeutic and diagnostic test. RESULTS: Costs were determined from the British Columbia Medical Association Guide to Fees, British Columbia Centre for Disease Control, hospital finance departments, and pharmaceutical wholesalers. A total of 82 (85%) residents completed the survey, but 11 were only partially completed. Few residents could estimate the cost of diagnostic tests or therapeutics to within 25% of the true cost, and the estimations were highly variable. Residents underestimated the cost of expensive drugs and overestimated the cost of inexpensive drugs. There was no relationship between cost awareness and training location, gender, residency year, or residents rating cost as important in ordering behaviour. CONCLUSION: Resident physicians in British Columbia, Canada have limited awareness of medical care costs.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".