Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Recent studies suggest that comprehensiveness of primary care has declined steadily over the past decade. This study tracks the participation rates of general practitioners and family physicians in 6 nonoffice settings across Ontario and examines among which types of physicians this decline in comprehensiveness has occurred. METHODS: Billing (claims) records were used to determine the proportions of fee-for-service general practitioners and family physicians who provided emergency, inpatient, nursing home, house call, anesthesia or obstetrical services from 1989/90 to 1999/2000. "Office-only" physicians were those who worked in none of these nonoffice settings. The relation of various physician characteristics to comprehensiveness of care was tested with multivariate analysis for 1999/2000. RESULTS: The proportion of "office-only" general practitioners and family physicians rose from 14% in 1989/90 to 24% in 1999/2000 (p < 0.001). Significant increases in this proportion were noted among general practitioners and family physicians of all ages, both sexes and all practice locations. In 1999/2000, recent graduates (who had completed medical school within the past 7 years) had higher participation rates for emergency medicine (40% v. 5% for physicians aged 65 years and older); female physicians had higher participation rates for obstetrics (16% v. 11% for males); and older physicians had higher participation rates for nursing home visits and house calls (20% and 57% respectively v. 11% and 37% for recent graduates). However, "office-only" physicians were more likely to be female (odds ratio [OR] 2.65, 95% confidence interval [CI] 2.37-2.96), recent graduates (OR 1.35, 95% CI 1.15-1.60), aged 65 years and older (OR 1.45, 95% CI 1.20-1.75) or practising in a city with a medical school (OR 2.30, 95% CI 2.06-2.56) and were less likely to be rural physicians (OR 0.31, 95% CI 0.24-0.41) or certified in family medicine (OR 0.58, 95% CI 0.52-0.66). INTERPRETATION: There has been a decline in the provision of comprehensive care by general practitioners and family physicians in Ontario. The decline is evident across all age groups and for both male and female physicians. It is also evident in rural areas and in cities with and without medical schools.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".