Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To determine whether the original continuity of care framework is still applicable to family medicine today. DESIGN: Qualitative descriptive study. SETTING: Kingston, Ont. PARTICIPANTS: Three groups of first-year family medicine residents (18 in total), 2 groups of family physicians in established comprehensive practices (9 in total), and 2 groups of family physicians working in episodic care settings (10 in total). METHODS: Using focus groups, a semistructured discussion guide, and a qualitative descriptive design, we explored the residents' and practising physicians' conceptions about continuity of care. Qualitative content analysis was used to identify themes. MAIN FINDINGS: Focus group participants consisting of family physicians providing comprehensive care, episodic care physicians, and family medicine residents exposed 2 new dimensions of continuity of care-community continuity of care (the physicians' roles in understanding the lives of their patients, and how this affects their overall health) and continuity of care within the health care team (the continuity between a patient and members of the interprofessional team, including the family physician). Geographic continuity of care (the care of a patient in various settings by the same physician) was not prominently discussed, perhaps reflecting the paucity of family physicians in the hospital setting. CONCLUSION: Both of these new dimensions of continuity of care are consistent with the ongoing evolution of family medicine as a discipline, and have important implications for how family medicine training programs should be designed to best prepare trainees for future practice.
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 | 0.015 | 0.025 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.021 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| 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".