Family physicians' interest and involvement in interdisciplinary collaborative practice in Alberta, Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Teamwork and collaborative practice are acknowledged as key to strengthening primary health care. This study assessed Canadian family physicians/ general practitioners’ (FPs/GPs) interest and involvement in interdisciplinary collaborative practice. Methods: From nine focus groups conducted with 46 FPs/GPs in the Capital Health region (Edmonton, Alberta) concerning the quality and capacity of services in family practice, the discussions related to collaborative practice and practice teams were extracted and qualitatively analysed. Based on this analysis, one section of a mail survey assessed FPs/GPs levels of interest and current involvement with 11 other types of health professionals. Results: In focus groups, FPs/GPs identified seven categories of issues related to interdisciplinary collaborative practice: quality and capacity of care, quality of work life, affordability, availability/accessibility of other health professionals, team-building processes, responsibility/accountability, and system resources. Survey responses from 300 of 583 FPs/GPs in the region (51%) showed substantial interest in working with other health professionals, but strikingly less frequent current working relationships. Conclusions: The large gap between the interest and willingness of FPs/GPs to collaborate and their current involvement in teamwork must be addressed if collaborative practice is to increase in line with the goals of primary care reform in Canada.
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 | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".