MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2118262248 · doi:10.1093/fampra/cmh104

Integration of the recommendations of the Canadian Task Force on Preventive Health Care: Obstacles perceived by a group of family physicians

2004· article· en· W2118262248 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueFamily Practice · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHealth Promotion and Cardiovascular Prevention
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Montréal
FundersMedical Research CouncilMedical Research Council Canada
KeywordsMedicineFocus groupIncentivePerceptionIntervention (counseling)Psychological interventionQualitative researchFamily medicineWork (physics)Task (project management)NursingHealth careMedical educationPsychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Surveys conducted in North America and in several European countries show that the preventive activities recommended by some groups of experts are difficult to integrate into medical practice. Interventions to correct this problem have produced mitigated results. OBJECTIVES: Our aim was to gain a better understanding of the obstacles perceived by a group of family physicians concerning the integration of prevention into their routine practices. METHODS: A qualitative design was selected to facilitate the exploration of that topic. Seven focus groups with 35 physicians practising in the Montreal area were conducted. Questions regarding their perception of, and obstacles to, the integration of prevention in their daily work were explored. The text of these interviews was analysed following the content analysis method. Codification of the important themes that were identified was done by two of the researchers. RESULTS: We met with 35 family physicians in two regions in Montreal, Quebec. The lack of motivation on the part of users and the lack of value placed on continuity of care appear to be the main obstacles in the eyes of the physicians, followed by a lack of financial incentives, work overload, and contradictions among the recommendations. In addition, other obstacles were observed by the researchers: limited intervention strategies on the part of physicians to support behaviour modification among patients, non-recognition of the importance of the organization of practice and inability to acknowledge the obstacles that can be ascribed to their own beliefs. CONCLUSION: The family physicians we met identified several barriers to the integration of prevention in their practices. The interventions proposed to date do not address the barriers perceived by the physicians in our study. Continuing medical education activities focus on knowledge, while the difficulties expressed relate more to communication skills coupled with a feeling of powerlessness. The physicians we met with do not seem to consider recall systems and looking at their organization of practice as possible solutions. The physicians seem to 'cave in' under the weight of the responsibilities that have been assigned to them in terms of health promotion. There may be room for proposing a more realistic menu. This study identifies a need for much more specific and concrete training on communication and counselling skills.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.751
Threshold uncertainty score0.989

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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 head0.025
GPT teacher head0.327
Teacher spread0.302 · 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