MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2152615918

Rewards and challenges of family practice: Web-based survey using the Delphi method.

2007· article· en· W2152615918 on OpenAlexaffabout
Donna Manca, Stanley Varnhagen, Pamela Brett-MacLean, G. Michael Allan, Olga Szafran, Allen Ausford, Carol Rowntree, Ismael Rumzan, Diana Turner

Bibliographic record

VenuePubMed · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicPrimary Care and Health Outcomes
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDelphi methodWorkloadFlexibility (engineering)Medical educationMedicinePsychologyNursingComputer science
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: To identify and describe the important rewards and challenges that affect family physicians in Alberta. DESIGN: Web-based qualitative study using the Delphi method. SETTING: Province of Alberta. PARTICIPANTS: Twenty-eight family physicians practising in Alberta. METHODS: The study website presented a description of the project, ethical information, a calendar of events, and contact information. Delphi surveys and demographic questionnaires were password protected. Five rounds of surveys were conducted between May 2004 and January 2005. Participants were notified of each round of surveys and prompted by e-mail if they did not respond. FINDINGS Participants identified 8 key rewards and 9 key challenges. The research team identified 2 additional challenges that were validated by participants. In order of perceived importance, key rewards were providing diverse and comprehensive care; providing preventive care; having relationships with patients and their families; being an immersed witness to the human condition; providing continuity of care and receiving ongoing feedback; having flexibility and control of practice and job security; maintaining and acquiring skills and knowledge; teaching and sharing knowledge and gaining experience and mentoring. The challenges, in order of perceived need to be addressed, were workload and time pressures and meeting demands; the need to promote the rewards of family practice to those considering joining the profession; overhead and income inequities; getting respect from specialists; the need to ensure that the rewards identified are not adversely affected by primary care reform; lack of availability of specialists, procedures, tests, and other resources; running a practice as a small business; paperwork, telephone calls, and forms; maintaining and acquiring skills and knowledge; patients' expectations; and medicolegal issues, insurance paperwork, and dealing with medical claims related to motor vehicle accidents. CONCLUSION: The rewards and challenges reported by participants outline the positive and negative factors in family practice. The challenges provide a focus for further work.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.022
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.793
Threshold uncertainty score0.749

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0220.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.320
GPT teacher head0.496
Teacher spread0.175 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations52
Published2007
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePubMedSame topicPrimary Care and Health OutcomesFrench-language works237,207