Prevalence of abusive encounters in the workplace of family physicians: a minor, major, or severe problem?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To examine the career prevalence of abusive encounters for family physicians in Canada. DESIGN: A 7-page cross-sectional mailed survey in English and French. SETTING: Canada. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 3802 randomly selected practising family physicians who were members of the College of Family Physicians of Canada. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Demographic characteristics of survey participants, career prevalence of abusive encounters, and perpetrators of abuse. MAIN FINDINGS: Twenty percent (20.4%) of the surveys (n = 774) were returned. Of the respondents, 44% were men and 56% were women. Most were in private practice in urban settings. The average number of years in practice was 15. The career prevalence of abusive encounters was divided into "minor," "major," and "severe" incidents. Of all the respondents, 98% had experienced at least 1 incident of minor abuse, 75% had experienced at least 1 incident of major abuse, and 39% had experienced at least 1 incident of severe abuse. Using chi(2) analysis, a number of demographic variables were found to be significantly associated with abuse including the physician's race and sex. Patients were the most common perpetrators of abuse. Ninety percent of family physicians surveyed reported that they had been abused by patients, while 70% reported that they had been abused by family members of patients. CONCLUSION: Approximately 2 in 5 family physicians surveyed were subjected to a considerable amount of severe abuse during practice. Abuse in the office setting might have grave consequences for the health and well-being of the victimized physicians and might hinder service retention where the risk of abuse is greatest.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".