Weekly work hours and clinical activities of Canadian family physicians: results of the 1997/98 National Family Physician Survey of the College of Family Physicians of Canada.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Health systems planning is a challenging task, exacerbated by a lack of detailed information on the role played by family physicians, as indicated by practice variations across regions and demographic characteristics. Outcome measures used in past studies of family physician practice patterns were not uniform. Furthermore, past research has generally been limited to narrowly defined geographic regions. A national study of family physician practice patterns was undertaken to allow regional-level comparisons of clinical workload and range of medical services offered. METHODS: The 1997/98 National Family Physician Survey was mailed to a sample of 5198 Canadian family physicians and general practitioners (FP/GPs); the overall response rate was 58.4% (3036 questionnaires returned, of which 3004 were analyzable). Sampling strata were based on College of Family Physicians of Canada (CFPC) membership status and regions of Canada. RESULTS: Clinical workload varied considerably across the demographic categories studied. Male physicians reported 8.9 more total weekly work hours than female physicians, but the mean number of medical and clinical services offered did not differ between the sexes. Solo practitioners reported 53.8 (95% confidence interval [CI] 52.7-55.0) total weekly work hours, whereas those practising in multidisciplinary clinics reported 45.0 (95% CI 43.2-46.8) hours. FP/GPs in the Atlantic and Prairie provinces reported 5.6 and 5.1 more weekly work hours, respectively, than the national average of 51.4 (95% CI 50.8-52.0) hours. Finally, FP/GPs who served inner-city populations reported 48.6 (95% CI 46.8-50.5) total weekly work hours, whereas those serving rural populations reported 57.0 (95% CI 54.7-59.2) hours. Mean weekly work hours were similar for all age cohorts less than 65 years. FP/GPs practising in less populated provinces and in rural areas reported the highest numbers of work hours, medical services offered and clinical procedures performed. INTERPRETATION: These data suggest significant variations in FP/GP clinical workload in relation to key demographic variables.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".