Do family physicians know the costs of medical care? Survey in British Columbia.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To determine the cost of 46 commonly used investigations and therapies and to assess British Columbia family doctors' awareness of these costs. DESIGN: Mailed survey asking about costs of 23 investigations and 23 therapies relevant to family practice. A random sample of 600 doctors was asked to report their awareness of costs and to estimate costs of the 46 items. SETTING: British Columbia. PARTICIPANTS: Six hundred family physicians. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Estimates within 25% of actual cost were considered correct. Associations between cost awareness and respondents'characteristics (eg, sex, practice location) were sought. Degree of error in estimates was also assessed. RESULTS: Overall, 283 (47.2%) surveys were returned and 259 analyzed. Few respondents estimated costs within 25% of true cost, and estimates were highly variable. Physicians underestimated costs of expensive drugs and laboratory investigations and overestimated costs of inexpensive drugs. Cost awareness did not correlate with sex, practice location, College certification, faculty appointment, or years in practice. CONCLUSION: Family doctors in British Columbia have little awareness of the costs of medical care.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".