Primary care reform. Physicians' participation in Hamilton-Wentworth.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To determine physicians' reasons for and against participating in a primary care reform (PCR) pilot project, to identify demographic and practice characteristics associated with participation, to gauge physicians' satisfaction with implementation of the project, and to seek suggestions for change. DESIGN: Cross-sectional mailed survey using a self-administered questionnaire. SETTING: Family practices in Hamilton-Wentworth, Ont. PARTICIPANTS: Eighty-two of 107 (76.6%) physicians who participated in the pilot project and 101 of 150 (67.3% of a 60% random sample of the area's remaining generalist physicians) who chose not to participate. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Physicians' primary and secondary motives for participating or not; comments on the pilot project; and subjects' demographic, professional, and practice characteristics. RESULTS: Despite their experience with capitation practice, after controlling for other factors, physicians from health service organizations were no more likely than their fee-for-service colleagues to join the pilot project. Those in large group practices were more likely to participate. Both participants and non-participants were concerned about disrupting call groups, burdening office staff, not having enough time, and whether the project's objectives were achievable. Other key findings were how few patients declined enrolment and how many physicians had unrealistic ideas about the demands of participation and the capabilities of currently available information technology. CONCLUSION: While many Hamilton-area physicians were eligible and willing to participate in a PCR pilot project, many were not. Our findings suggest that physicians and government should clarify their expectations for PCR and that we need to look for better ways to register patients and select information technology for PCR.
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 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.016 | 0.001 |
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".