[Collaboration between family physicians and home care professionals. Is it possible?].
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To describe perceptions of physicians and home care professionals working in local community service centres (CLSCs) with respect to collaboration on home care follow up, and to identify conditions likely to help or hinder cooperation. DESIGN: Descriptive study using individual and group interviews. SETTING: Areas served by three CLSCs in the Quebec city region. PARTICIPANTS: Forty-five general practitioners with large home care practices and coordinators and representatives of CLSC home care teams. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Perceptions of physicians and home care professionals with respect to interprofessional cooperation on and barriers to home care follow up. RESULTS: Most participants thought that cooperation would be beneficial to complex case management and continuity of follow-up care. In practice, however, cooperation is hindered by differences in medical practice and home care team service delivery and in methods of remuneration, and lack of knowledge of the other field of practice. CONCLUSION: All participants recognized the importance of cooperation. This study did not reveal any real integration of medical and CLSC home care services. Efforts must be made to identify the strategies most conducive to improving interprofessional cooperation.
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 | 0.004 | 0.018 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| 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".