A Web-Based Survey of Residents’ Views on Advocating with Patients for a Healthy Built Environment in Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose. To determine family medicine residents' perceived knowledge and attitudes towards the built environment and their responsibility for health advocacy and to identify their perceived educational needs and barriers to patient education and advocacy. Methods. A web-based survey was conducted in Canada with University of Toronto family medicine residents. Data were analyzed descriptively. Results. 93% agreed or strongly agreed that built environment significantly impacts health. 64% thought educating patients on built environment is effective disease prevention; 52% considered this a role of family physicians. 78% reported that advocacy for built environment is effective disease prevention; 56% perceived this to be the family physician's role. 59% reported being knowledgeable to discuss how a patient's environment may affect his/her health; 35% reported being knowledgeable to participate in community discussions on built environment. 78% thought education would help with integration into practice. Inadequate time (92%), knowledge (73%), and remuneration (54%) were barriers. Conclusions. While residents perceived value in education and advocacy as disease prevention strategies and acknowledged the importance of a healthy built environment, they did not consider advocacy towards this the family physician's role. Barrier reduction and medical education may contribute to improved advocacy, ultimately improving physical activity levels and patient health outcomes.
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 | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".