Being community-responsive physicians. Doing the right thing.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To explore how primary care physicians respond to a community's needs and challenges. DESIGN: Qualitative study using focus groups. SETTING: Fee-for-service practices or community health centres in downtown Toronto, Ont. PARTICIPANTS: Purposive sample of 21 community family physicians (10 women and 11 men). METHOD: Participants were invited to join focus groups of four to six physicians. Themes were derived from qualitative analysis of the data using grounded theory. MAIN FINDINGS: Three major themes were identified by these community-responsive physicians: they carry out specific roles (collaborator, health educator, advocate, resource, and tailor of care); they face several challenges, including lack of funding and a dysfunctional health care system; and they share common beliefs about practising medicine. Whether current health care structures support physicians to actually carry out these roles in practice, however, is unclear. CONCLUSION: This study increased understanding of how primary care physicians respond to community needs and what they experience in the process.
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 | 0.007 | 0.020 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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.
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".