Loyalty to the regular care provider: patients' and physicians' views
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Changes in the organization of primary care practices are likely to have repercussions on the manner in which patients and physicians perceive loyalty to a regular source of care. A better understanding of their views will contribute to conceptual reflections on this poorly documented topic and, where needed, will reinforce efforts to adapt services to patient expectations. OBJECTIVES: The aims of this study are to document and compare the views that patients and GPs have of loyalty to the regular care provider. METHODS: This exploratory study uses the focus group technique. In 1997, we set up three groups of patients and three groups of physicians practising in Montreal. A total of 23 patients and 14 physicians participated in the study. The meetings investigated the participants' points of view on various aspects of the notion of loyalty. Analysis was based on transcripts of the meetings. The emerging themes were identified and the viewpoints were coded independently and then revised (when necessary) in order to obtain a consensus. RESULTS: Patients and physicians have a relatively congruent vision of the notion of loyalty. This tendency to use the regular source of care over time appears to be rooted in a formal or informal contract between patients and their physicians and implies a sustained partnership and a strong interpersonal relationship. The relationship established is neither exclusive nor permanent. Patients periodically reconsider it by evaluating their physician's technical and interpersonal skills. CONCLUSIONS: This study highlights the dynamic and multidimensional nature of the notion of loyalty. It shows that patients clearly identify with a particular physician rather than a clinic. The results challenge the prevailing methods of assessing longitudinality of care.
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 | 0.003 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".