Patients' perceptions and experiences of family medicine residents in the office.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To examine patients' perceptions and experiences of having family medicine residents in the office. DESIGN: Descriptive survey; questionnaire completed by patients. SETTING: Outpatient office of 4 family physicians in the greater Vancouver area, affiliated with the Department of Family Medicine at the University of British Columbia. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 265 English-speaking adult patients attending the office. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Patients' self-reported perceptions and experiences of having family medicine residents in the office. RESULTS: Response rate was 94.7% (251 of 265 patients completed the questionnaire). Although 81% of respondents had seen residents in the office, 59% did not understand a resident's training or thought residents were medical students. The 3 main reasons participants gave for choosing to have residents involved in their care were the following: to contribute to training future doctors (61.8%); to obtain 2 opinions instead of 1 (20%); and residents are most up-to-date (11.2%). The most common reasons for choosing not to see residents were the following: to continue relationships with their own doctors (54.2%); to avoid the need to repeat history (18.6%); and the perception that residents are less experienced (16.9%). Having a resident involved in their care was perceived as a positive experience by 95.5% of respondents who had seen residents. Overall satisfaction with care and overall comfort in dealing with residents were ranked good to excellent by 91.8% and 90.8% of respondents, respectively. About 71% of patients said they would choose to have residents involved in their care. CONCLUSION: Respondents reported very positive experiences with having family medicine residents in the office. Overall comfort and satisfaction with seeing family medicine residents was reported to be extremely high, and most patients surveyed would choose to have family medicine residents involved in their care. Patients needed to know more about the resident's level of training and the role of residents in patient-resident interactions.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".