Disrespect, harassment, and abuse: all in a day's work for family physicians.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To examine harassment and abusive encounters between family physicians and their patients or colleagues in the workplace. DESIGN: Qualitative case study using semistructured interviews. SETTING: Province of New Brunswick. PARTICIPANTS: Forty-eight family physicians from across the province. METHODS: A collective case-study approach was developed, with 24 cases of 2 individuals per case. Cases were selected based on sex, location (urban or rural), language (French or English), and number of years since medical school graduation (< 10 years, 10 to 20 years, or > 20 years). Physicians were interviewed in either French or English. Participants were recruited using the College of Physicians and Surgeons of New Brunswick's physician directory. Based on the rates of response and participation, some cases were overrepresented, while others were not completed. All interviews were audiotaped, transcribed verbatim, and analyzed thematically using a categorical aggregation approach. A coding scheme for the thematic analysis was developed by the research team before the interviews were transcribed. MAIN FINDINGS: Although the original intent of this study was to examine the work environment of family physicians in light of the increasing number of women entering the profession, harassment and abusive encounters in the workplace emerged as a main theme. These encounters ranged from minor to severe. Minor abusive encounters included disrespectful behaviour and verbal threats by patients, their families, and occasionally colleagues. More severe forms of harassment involved physical threats, physical encounters, and stalking. Demanding patients, such as heavy drug users, were often seen as threatening. Location of practice, years in practice, and sex of the physician seemed to affect abusive encounters--young, female, rural physicians appeared to experience such encounters most often. CONCLUSION: Abusive encounters in the workplace are concerning. It is essential to address these issues of workplace harassment and abuse in order to protect physician safety and avoid workplace dissatisfaction. Abusive encounters might push family physicians to leave clinical practice prematurely or refuse to work in higher-risk environments, such as emergency departments or rural areas.
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) | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".