Educational and health service needs of Australian general practitioners in managing hepatitis C
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: There has been interest in recent years in the role of primary care practitioners in managing hepatitis C, but there has been minimal research to identify educational and health service needs. A national survey of Australian general practitioners (GPs) was therefore conducted to assess their needs and identify areas for service development. METHODS: A self-administered questionnaire was developed that included questions to assess caseload, confidence in patient management, educational needs and approaches to management and prevention. Questionnaires were sent to a random sample of Australian GPs. Returned questionnaires were coded, frequencies tabulated and significant associations identified. RESULTS: A 70% response rate was achieved from 658 eligible GPs. A total of 76% of respondents had managed one patient in the previous year with hepatitis C. While 69% reported feeling more confident about their management of hepatitis C than 5 years previously, 55% identified a high level of need for hospital-based clinics. Financial benefits for case conferences and chronic case management were not considered useful by most GPs. Topics identified for further skills development included therapeutics and diagnostic testing. Only 39% were highly likely to discuss psychosocial issues as part of initial patient management and 37% reported finding it difficult to play a central role in the medical and psychosocial care of patients with hepatitis C. CONCLUSION: These results have significant implications for policy and service development, as well as identifying areas where GPs need support. The findings invite further discussion between health authorities about the source and magnitude of funding for hospital-based services and further consideration of how to provide services to address patients' psychosocial needs.
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 | 0.027 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".