The Role of the Physician in Disability Management: Assessing Family Physicians' View of Discrepancies Between Practice and Canadian Medical Association Guidelines
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Purpose: This research project aimed to explore the views and perspectives of family physicians in regards to fulfilling their role in disability management (DM) — specifically, to examine the discrepancies between physicians' practice in DM and their professional guidelines, with special attention to physicians' experience in collaborating with key stakeholders. Methods: Seven family physicians were interviewed using a semi-structured interview format (8 evidence-based questions and 2 case examples). Interviews were recorded and transcribed. A content analysis of the interview data was conducted in addition to a thematic review of participant responses. Results: Data revealed that in accordance with previous literature, physicians' practice does not typically emulate Canadian Medical Association policy, and the participant physicians described several barriers as the reason for this discrepancy. This study revealed a multitude of frustrations encountered by physicians when interacting with other parties in DM. Participant physicians also reported potential solutions to these frustrations and other related issues. Conclusion: This qualitative study yields valuable insight into barriers, as well as facilitating factors, for physicians in the fulfillment of their DM role. Some practical recommendations for the DM community are presented, while noting that more research should be conducted, including input from key DM stakeholders, to both gain further understanding of physicians' DM function, and to identify viable interventions aimed at optimising their role.
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 | 0.027 | 0.082 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".