General practice as seen through the eyes of general practice trainees: A qualitative study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To explore the perceptions of general practice trainees regarding their discipline and to compare these spontaneously expressed views with recently proposed definitions of general practice. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A qualitative focus-group study was conducted in one Belgian and two French medical schools. Twenty-eight trainees took part (16 from Belgium and 12 from France). The transcripts were analysed by the immersion crystallization method. RESULTS: The participants in this study seemed prepared to take on the many responsibilities outlined in various definitions of general practice, but feared personal commitment to accessibility and continuous care. Being skilled clinicians and patients' advocates formed their "raison d'être" in the healthcare system. They were reluctant to act as gatekeepers within the system, a role that might jeopardize their advocacy function for their patients. They mentioned the lack of appeal of entrepreneurship aspect of practice. Participants reported that training settings typically offer traditional models of practice, which sometimes led them to feel estranged from a profession that they felt needs reorganization. CONCLUSIONS: Participants' descriptions generally coincided with official definitions of general practitioners' tasks, except for practice management and gate-keeping aspects. They were willing to accept the burden of general practice as long as responsibility could be shared and as long as there was freedom for flexible progress along a modern career track.
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 | 0.007 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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".