Hands on: is there an association between doing procedures and job satisfaction?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To determine whether there is a relationship in family medicine between higher overall job satisfaction and doing a wider range of procedures. DESIGN: Secondary analysis of a population survey (mailed questionnaire) using multiple regression analysis. SETTING: Canadian family practices. PARTICIPANTS: Family physicians who responded to the 2001 National Family Physician Workforce Survey conducted by the College of Family Physicians of Canada and whose main practice settings were private offices or clinics, community clinics, community health centres, or academic family medicine teaching units. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Family physicians' overall job satisfaction. The predictor variable was range of procedures performed, defined as the variety of procedures done by family physicians. Eight potential confounding variables were examined: age; sex; solo versus group practice; population served by practice (urban, semiurban, rural); number of medical services offered; teaching (yes, no); constraints to medical care services; and the balance of physicians' personal and professional commitments. RESULTS: Of 19,762 physicians who responded to the question on job satisfaction, 15.8% were dissatisfied, 54.3% were moderately satisfied, and 29.8% were very satisfied overall. In multiple regression analysis, when controlling for confounding variables, the range of procedures done by family physicians was significantly associated with overall job satisfaction (P = .0001). The larger the range of procedures, the more satisfied the physician. The percentage of those very satisfied ranged from 28.1% for family physicians who did only a few procedures (0 to 4) to 33.5% for those who did 10 or more procedures. Greater satisfaction was reported by very young and very old male physicians, those in solo practice, rural physicians, teachers, those who had fewer constraints to medical care services, and those who thought their balance of personal and professional commitments was about right. CONCLUSION: Family physicians might improve their overall job satisfaction by increasing the range of procedures they do. This modest association has not been described previously.
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 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".