Care Partnerships Between Family Physicians and Rheumatologists
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To describe care partnerships between family physicians and rheumatologists. METHODS: A random sample (20%, n = 478) of family physicians was mailed a questionnaire, asking if there was at least 1 particular rheumatologist to whom the physician tended to refer patients. If the answer was affirmative, the physician would be considered as having a "care partnership" with that rheumatologist. The family physician then rated, on a 5-point scale, factors of importance regarding the relationship with that rheumatologist. RESULTS: The questionnaire was completed by 84/462 (18.2%) of family physicians; 52/84 (61.9%) reported having rheumatology care partnerships according to our definition. Regarding interactions with rheumatologists, most respondents rated the following as important (score ≥ 4): adequate communication and information exchange (44/50, 88.0%); waiting time for new patients (40/50, 80.0%); clear and appropriate balance of responsibilities (39/49, 79.6%); and patient feedback and preferences (34/50, 68%). Male family physicians were more likely than females to accord high importance to personal knowledge of the rheumatologist, and to physical proximity of the rheumatologist's practice. Regarding relationships with rheumatologists, 30/50 (60.0%) of respondents felt communication and information exchange were adequate, and 35/50 (70.0%) felt they had a clear balance of responsibilities. CONCLUSION: Almost two-thirds of family physicians have rheumatology care partnerships, according to our definition. In this partnership, establishing adequate communication and shorter waiting time seem of paramount importance to family physicians. A balanced sharing of responsibilities and patients' preferences are also valued. Although many physicians reported adequate communication and clear and appropriate balance of responsibilities in their current interactions with rheumatologists, there appears to be room for improvement.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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".