Patient satisfaction with access in two interprofessional academic family medicine clinics
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Satisfaction with access to primary care is one component of overall patient satisfaction. The objectives of this paper were to describe patient satisfaction with access in interprofessional family practices and to examine predictors of being less than satisfied with access. METHODS: A survey was mailed to 770 randomly selected patients in two academic interprofessional family practices in Hamilton, Canada. Most items were positively worded statements on a five-point scale from strongly agree to strongly disagree. Outcomes were the proportion of respondents agreeing with statements regarding access. For items where > or =25% of respondents did not agree, we examined socio-demographic predictors of disagreement using multiple variable logistic regression. RESULTS: The response rate was 49.9% (384/770). One-quarter or more of respondents did not agree that they received an explanation if the appointment was delayed at the office, obtain urgent appointments, obtain prescription refills without a visit or that wait times at the office were reasonable. Predictors of not agreeing included younger age, being married or single, more educated, employed and of non-white ethnicity. Less than 10 minutes was the most satisfactory wait time for the appointment to begin; however, the most common wait time reported was 11-20 minutes. One-quarter of respondents had visited the weekend/holiday clinic in the past 12 months; however, use was not associated with perceived ability to obtain an appointment in 1-2 days. CONCLUSIONS: While satisfaction was generally high, some aspects of access could be improved by changes in practice organization or patient education regarding expectations.
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 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.004 |
| 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".