Integration of the recommendations of the Canadian Task Force on Preventive Health Care: Obstacles perceived by a group of family physicians
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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.
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 | 0.010 | 0.039 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 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".