Primary care physicians in Hong Kong and Canada—how did their practices differ during the SARS epidemic?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Hong Kong and Canada have very different primary health care systems. We thus hypothesized family physicians between the two places would be different in how they protected themselves, their staff and families during the epidemic. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to explore and contrast the impact of SARS on family physicians in Hong Kong and Toronto. METHODS: A postal questionnaire was designed and sent to 183 tutors affiliated with the Chinese University of Hong Kong with 137 replies (74.8%). In Toronto, 150 questionnaires were sent to academic family physicians affiliated with the University of Toronto with 51 replies (34%). RESULTS: All agreed SARS had changed their clinical behaviour. For public health measures in the control of SARS, Hong Kong physicians were less likely to quarantined themselves (77.1% versus 19.4%, P < 0.01) or gave quarantine leave to staff (95% versus 59.7%, P < 0.01) after exposure to probable or suspected SARS. However, they were more likely to wear a mask (52.7% versus 97.7%, P = 0) during consultation, having support staff to wear masks (68.6% versus 97.8%, P = 0) and test patient's temperature (47.1% versus 68.1%, P < 0.01). CONCLUSION: There were noticeable differences in how family physicians deal with SARS between the two cities. As SARS emerged as a global disease, better understanding of practice differences among physicians from different countries would facilitate globalization of public health.
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 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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".