[Delivery of home health care. Survey of the Quebec region].
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To describe the characteristics of home health care delivered by general practitioners and to identify the conditions that facilitate or hinder development of this practice. DESIGN: Mailed survey. SETTING: Quebec city region. PARTICIPANTS: General practitioners in private practice, family practice units, community health centres, or hospitals. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: A self-administered questionnaire was used to gather information on volume of home care provided, characteristics of clients and visits, methods of follow up, and factors that promoted or hindered home care. RESULTS: Of the 487 physicians surveyed, 58.1% (283) made housecalls to a clientele consisting mainly of elderly patients (87.6%): 42% saw fewer than five patients per week, and 31% spent 2 hours or less per week on housecalls. Close to two thirds (64%) devoted 15 to 30 minutes to these visits, and 90.2% said they used community health centres for assessment or home follow up of their patients. Difficulties with scheduling and methods of remuneration reportedly hampered development of this practice. CONCLUSION: Home care practice is widespread around Quebec city, but represents only a small portion of the clinical work of many GPs.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
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".