Does having regular care by a family physician improve preventive care?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To assess whether regular care from a family physician is associated with receiving preventive services. DESIGN: Secondary analysis of the 1994 National Population Health Survey. SETTING: Cross-sectional sample of the Canadian population. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 15,731 non-institutionalized adults. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Reported visits to general practitioners and specialists in the previous year and reports of having had blood pressure measurements, mammography, and Pap smears. RESULTS: A graded relationship was observed between level of regular care by a family physician in the previous year (none, some, regular) and receiving preventive services. Those without regular doctors and those reporting only some care by a family physician were less likely to have ever had their blood pressure checked than adults receiving ongoing care from a regular family physician. Women reporting some or no care were less likely to have had mammography within 2 years or to have ever had Pap smears. CONCLUSION: Adults who receive regular care from a family physician are more likely to receive recommended preventive services.
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 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".