Health care system reform. Ontario family physicians' reactions.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To determine the effect on a cohort of family physicians of health care system reforms in Ontario and the relationship of reforms to their career satisfaction. DESIGN: Follow-up survey in 1999 of a cohort initially studied in 1993, posing many of the original questions along with some new ones. Four focus groups of other Ontario family physicians. SETTING: Family practices in Ontario. PARTICIPANTS: All family physicians who had received certification after completing a family medicine residency between 1989 and 1991 and were practising in Ontario in 1993. This report addresses only those members of the cohort who continued to practise family medicine in Ontario (N = 236). Four focus groups with a total of 27 family physicians. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Reaction to health care system reforms. Perceived effect of reforms on practice. Current perception of quality of health care system and level of career satisfaction and changes in these variables since 1993. RESULTS: Response rate was 53% of original cohort. Only three of 13 selected health reforms were believed to have had a favourable effect. Physicians reported lower levels of satisfaction with their careers. Overall quality of the health care system was perceived by both respondents and focus group members to have declined. Several difficulties affected practice and personal life. CONCLUSION: Family physicians viewed the effect of health care reforms negatively and were significantly less satisfied with their careers than they were in 1993. Better consultation with stakeholders before implementation of reforms is needed to ensure that these stakeholders understand the likely effects of these reforms.
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 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 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".