Beyond Fighting Fires and Chasing Tails? Chronic Illness Care Plans in Ontario, Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: Recent work has conceptualized new models for the primary care management of patients with chronic illness. This study investigated the experience of family physicians and patients with a chronic illness management initiative that involved the joint formulation of comprehensive individual patient care plans. METHODS: A qualitative evaluation, framed by phenomenology, immediately followed a randomized controlled trial examining the effect of external facilitators in enhancing the delivery of chronic condition care planning in primary care. The study, set in Ontario family practices, used semistructured in-depth interviews with a purposive sample of 13 family physicians, 20 patients, and all 3 study facilitators. Analysis used independent transcript review and constant comparative methods. RESULTS: Despite the intervention being grounded in patient-centered principles, family physicians generally viewed chronic illness management from a predominantly biomedical perspective. Only a few enthusiasts viewed systematic care planning as a new approach to managing patients with chronic illness. Most family physicians found the strategy to be difficult to implement within existing organizational and financial constraints. For these participants, care planning conflicted with preexisting concepts of their role and of their patient's abilities to become partners in care. The few patients who noticed the process spoke favorably about their experience. CONCLUSIONS: Although the experiences of the enthusiastic family physicians were encouraging, we found important individual-level barriers to chronic illness management in primary care. These issues seemed to transcend existing organizational and resource constraints.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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".