'Meeting People Where They're At': Experiences of Family Physicians Engaging Women Who Use Illicit Drugs
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: There is little research exploring the experiences of family physicians caring for women who use illicit drugs. This study explores the experiences of these physicians in order to better understand the process of engaging these women in the patient-physician relationship. METHODS: We conducted a phenomenologic, qualitative study using individual, in-depth interviews with 10 family physicians working in inner-city Toronto and Ottawa, Ontario. An iterative and interpretive analysis was used. RESULTS: Three broad themes emerged from the analysis. The predominant theme was that of the patient-physician relationship, which consisted of 2 phases: the engagement phase and the maintenance phase. During the engagement phase, issues such as access and women's experiences of trauma and violence were evident and impeded participants' ability to engage with this population. As such, the patient-physician relationship during the engagement phase was tenuous. Trust and presence were paramount during this phase. Once a family physician engaged a woman, the transition to the maintenance phase was made. Within the maintenance phase, 2 subthemes were identified: continuity of care and "meeting people where they're at" (finding common ground). CONCLUSIONS: This study identified a 2-phase process of the patient-physician relationship from the perspective of family physicians caring for women using illicit drugs: the engagement and maintenance phases. Our findings identified strategies to support the patient-physician relationship during each of these phases that have implications for improving the health of these women.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".