Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Current perceptions of family physician (FP) shortages in Canada have prompted policies to expand medical schools. Our objective was to assess how FP supply, workloads and access to care have changed over the past decade. METHODS: We used an anonymized physician and population registry and administrative health service data from Winnipeg for the period 1991/92 to 2000/01. We calculated the following measures of supply and workload: ratios of FPs to population, of population to FPs and of FP full-time equivalents (FTEs) to population, as well as FP activity ratios (sum of FTEs/number of FPs), annual number of visits per FP and visits per FP per full-time day of work. Trends in FP remuneration were analyzed by age and sex. We also measured standardized visit rates and stratified the analysis by populations deemed at risk of needing FP services. RESULTS: In 2000/01 FPs between 30 and 49 years of age (64% of the workforce) provided 20% fewer visits per year than their same-age peers did 10 years previously. Conversely, FPs 60 to 69 years of age (11% of the workforce) provided 33% more visits per year than the corresponding group a decade earlier. On a per capita basis, the number of FPs declined by 5%, from 97 per 100 000 population in 1991/92 to 92 per 100 000 population in 2000/01, which paralleled changes in national estimates of FP supply. Per capita visit rates among Winnipeg citizens (3.5 per year in 2000/01) and average workloads among FPs (4193 visits per year in 2000/01) were stable over the decade. INTERPRETATION: Despite relative homeostasis in aggregate FP supply and use, there have been substantial temporal shifts in the volume of services provided by FPs of different age groups. Younger FPs are providing many fewer visits and older FPs are providing many more visits than their same-age predecessors did 10 years ago, a finding that was independent of physician sex. Given these data, the perpetual focus of policy-makers and care providers on increasing numbers of FPs will not help in diagnosing or treating issues of supply, workloads and access to care.
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 | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".