Family Physicians' Satisfaction with Current Practice: What Is the Role of Their Interactions with Specialists?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Provision of high-quality care sometimes necessitates a referral to, and receipt of timely feedback from, specialist physicians. Interaction with specialists is a key role of family physicians, but it has not received significant attention with respect to its impact on family physician satisfaction. The authors conducted a cross-sectional analysis of data gathered from a decennial census of family physicians in southwestern Ontario. The conceptual framework was based on the model developed by the Society of General Internal Medicine (SGIM) Career Satisfaction Work Group. More than two-thirds of respondents were "very satisfied" with their current practice. Stepwise regression analysis based on a generalized linear model showed that greater difficulty in referring patients to specialists was associated with 23% lower odds of being "very satisfied". Not receiving a timely response from specialists was associated with 26% higher odds of not being "very satisfied." Marital status, teaching involvement and practice volume were also associated with satisfaction. The findings indicate that the practice of family medicine offers a fulfilling career in today's medical marketplace. However, linkages and feedback between family physicians and specialists need to be augmented.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".