Comparing the characteristics and attitudes of physicians in different primary care settings: The Ontario Walk-in Clinic Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: In Canada, walk-in clinics (WICs) are a focus for debate about access to and the costs and quality of primary care. While WICs may offer patients easier access through longer hours and shorter waits, it has been argued that they may also lead to unnecessary utilization, duplication of services, lack of continuity of care, decreased quality and increased costs. OBJECTIVES: The main objectives were to analyse the characteristics and attitudes of physicians working in different family practice types including WICs. METHODS: We analysed the results of a 1998 survey of 728 primary care physicians in Ontario to compare physicians working in WICs with those working in solo and group family practices. RESULTS: Our survey found that few physicians worked most or all of their hours in WICs; most worked in WICs and other family practice types. Compared to family physicians in solo and group practices, physicians working in WICs saw more patients who were not their regular patients, patients without appointments and children. They reported slightly higher frequencies of problems such as backlogs (patient queues) and patients who had sought care from other doctors for the same problem. WIC physicians were less satisfied than other physicians with their relations with patients. They were, however, more satisfied with the availability of consultation, support staff, hours, income, and vacation coverage. Further, WIC physicians assessed the quality of care in WICs to be neither better nor worse than that in other family practices. CONCLUSIONS: We conclude that there are important similarities as well as differences, between physicians in WICs and those in more conventional family practices. The assessments of primary care physicians do not support the generally negative reputation of WICs. Instead, greater consideration should be given to the system-level issues which produce demand for WICs.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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".