Measuring community-oriented attitudes towards medical practice
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The measurement of attitude and attitudinal changes regarding community-oriented primary care (COPC) and the community-oriented principles of family medicine from the College of Family Physicians of Canada was a key component of this study involving family medicine residents. The Department of Family and Community Medicine at the Toronto Hospital initiated a new COPC curriculum in July 1997 for its first-year residents which was designed to teach the principles of family medicine which are community oriented. OBJECTIVE: This study was developed to provide an analysis and summary of the attitude and attitudinal changes of residents exposed to the programme and those of two cohort groups who were not exposed. METHODS: A quasi-experimental design was used. A 20-item questionnaire was administered pre- and post-intervention. Qualitative data were also collected from focus group sessions with the residents exposed to the programme. RESULTS: The questionnaire was found to have good reliability, with an alpha coefficient of 0.8. No significant differences were observed between the study and control groups pre- and post-intervention. Within the study group, two items from the questionnaire yielded significant differences (P < 0.05). These items dealt with lack of funding and impracticality issues of applying COPC in medical practice. They were also the prevalent themes generated from the focus group session analysis. CONCLUSIONS: The qualitative data corroborated the findings of the survey. These findings have helped in the evolution of the curriculum. Longitudinal studies to measure attitudes and the practice of COPC and community-oriented principles of family medicine after residency are recommended.
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 | 0.005 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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".