MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2110000199 · doi:10.22605/rrh1864

Generational differences in factors influencing physicians to choose a work location

2012· article· en· W2110000199 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Maria Mathews, Maureen Seguin, Nurun Chowdhury, Robert Card

Bibliographic record

VenueRural and Remote Health · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicGlobal Health Workforce Issues
Canadian institutionsUniversity of SaskatchewanRoyal University HospitalMemorial University of Newfoundland
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchNewfoundland and Labrador Centre for Applied Health Research
KeywordsGraduation (instrument)WorkforceEconomic shortageThematic analysisFamily medicineWork (physics)PopulationLocationMedical educationMedicinePsychologyQualitative researchDemographyGeographySociologyPolitical scienceGovernment (linguistics)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

INTRODUCTION: Canadian medical schools have increased enrolment and recruited more rural students in an effort to address general and rural physician shortages. The success of this approach depends on the recruitment of these newly trained physicians to under-serviced areas. Studies from North America suggest that the career expectations and practice patterns of younger, more recently graduated physicians differ from those of their older counterparts. This study explored the factors that influenced the work location choices of physicians of differing generations, who trained at universities in Saskatchewan, and Newfoundland and Labrador, two Canadian provinces with large rural populations and no community larger than 235 000 population. METHODS: Semi-structured, qualitative interviews were conducted with physicians who graduated from either the Memorial University of Newfoundland or the University of Saskatchewan. Generation definitions were based on the graduation year. Early-career physicians graduated between 1995 and 1999; mid-career physician graduated between 1985 and 1989; late-career physicians graduated between 1975 and 1979; and end-career physicians graduated between 1965 and 1969. Each physician was asked questions about the number and nature of work location changes over the course of their careers and the factors related to their decision to choose each location. Interview transcripts and notes were analyzed using a thematic analysis approach. Although the study focus was on generational differences, similarities and differences between universities, sexes and specialties (family physicians/GPs vs specialists) were also examined. Recruitment to the provinces was focused on as a whole, because the largest communities in the provinces are small compared with most urban communities. RESULTS: Forty-eight physicians were interviewed, five to nine physicians who graduated in each decade and from each university. The desire to be near family and friends was cited as the primary consideration when choosing a work location, regardless of generation. Likewise, residency training location, the ability to use their skills and knowledge fully, and the quality of recruitment efforts were important considerations in choosing a work location for all physicians. For some, remuneration was very influential in their work location decision; however, many physicians who chose to remain in their smaller 'home' provinces noted the lower cost of living in these provinces. Physicians who graduated in the 1980s and 1990s placed greater emphasis on work-life balance and spouse's employment opportunities than their older generation counterparts. In contrast, physicians who graduated in the 1960s and 1070s highlighted the medical need of the community, and the desire for adventure and to see new places as important. CONCLUSIONS: While many factors for choosing a work location appear to be stable over generations, a number of generational differences were found. Younger physicians placed greater emphasis on work-life balance and spouse's employment than older generation physicians. These differences may have important implications for small population regions which may not be able to support physician-spouse pairs or certain subspecialties. Although economic factors have largely been the focus of recruitment and retention initiatives in these provinces, the findings highlight the importance of addressing the needs and expectations of younger generation physicians in order to attract these physicians.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.009
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.078
Threshold uncertainty score0.156

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.053
GPT teacher head0.395
Teacher spread0.341 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations25
Published2012
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRural and Remote HealthSame topicGlobal Health Workforce IssuesFrench-language works237,207