Canadians' willingness to receive care from physician assistants.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To determine the willingness of Canadians to accept treatment from physician assistants (PAs). DESIGN: Respondents were asked to be surrogate patients or parents under 1 of 3 conditions selected at random. Two scenarios involved injury to themselves, with the third involving injury to their children. The wait time for a physician was assumed to be 4 hours, whereas to explore the sensitivity of patients' preferences for a range of times, PA wait times were 30 minutes, 1 hour, and 2 hours. SETTING: Vancouver, BC. PARTICIPANTS: Two hundred twenty-nine mothers attending a hospital with their children. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The main outcome measure was the proportion of individuals in each scenario who were willing to be treated by PAs for at least one of the time trade-off options offered. A secondary outcome was the proportion of individuals who changed their answers when the waiting time to see the PA varied. RESULTS: Regardless of the scenarios, 99% of participants opted for PAs under the personal circumstances; 96% opted for PAs when the issue involved their children. The choice favouring the PA persisted, albeit at slightly lower proportions, as the difference in wait time between PAs and physicians decreased (85% and 67% for a difference in PA and physician wait time of 3 and 2 hours, respectively). CONCLUSION: These findings suggest that British Columbians are willing to be treated by PAs under most circumstances, whether this includes themselves or their children. The high level of willingness to be treated by PAs demonstrates public confidence in PA care, and suggests that the use of PAs in Canadian emergency departments or clinics is a viable policy response to decreasing primary care capacity.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".