Further Study of “Care Partnerships”: The Rheumatology Perspective
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: We have previously described rheumatology ‘care partnerships’ from the perspective of Quebec family doctors. Our current objective was to describe the perceptions of rheumatologists regarding rheumatology ‘care partnerships’. Methods: Practicing Quebec adult rheumatologists (N=100) were mailed a questionnaire, asking them to rate, on a 5-point scale, factors of importance regarding their relationship with family physicians. A factor was considered to be ranked as high importance to the rheumatologist, if the factor was scored as >4. Results: Of the 100 rheumatologists contacted, 56 completed the survey. All but one of the respondents (n=55) ranked communication and information exchange, as being of high importance. Clear and appropriate balance of responsibilities was also considered very important by most respondents (n=47, 84%) as was appropriateness of referrals from the family physicians (n=42, 75%). Personal knowledge of the family physician (n=19, 34%) and physical proximity to the family physician (n=7, 13%) were less frequently ranked as important to rheumatologists. Conclusion: Along with our previous work, these results confirm that rheumatologists and family doctors share similar values when it comes to rheumatology “care partnerships”. Further study of how to optimize relationships between family physicians and specialists would be of interest. Keywords: Rheumatology, arthritis, family physicians, specialists, care partnership, communication. Read more →
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 | 0.009 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.011 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 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".