MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2160443772

Collaboration between family physicians and nurse clinicians: opinions of graduates in family medicine.

2014· article· en· W2160443772 on OpenAlexaffabout
Brigitte Maheux, Luc Côté, Omobola Sobanjo, Louise Authier, Julie Lajeunesse, Mylène Leclerc, Louise Lefort

Bibliographic record

VenuePubMed · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicInterprofessional Education and Collaboration
Canadian institutionsCollege of Family Physicians of CanadaUniversité LavalHôpital Notre-DameUniversité de Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineFamily medicineMEDLINENursing
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: To determine whether graduating family physicians are exposed to collaboration between family physicians and nurse clinicians during their training, as well as their opinions about shared care between doctors and nurse clinicians in the delivery of patient care. DESIGN: Anonymous online survey. SETTING: Two French-Canadian university family medicine residency programs. PARTICIPANTS: The 2010 and 2011 graduating family physicians (N = 343) from the University of Montreal and Laval University in Quebec. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The extent to which nurse clinicians in graduating family physicians' training milieu were involved in preventive and curative patient care activities, and graduates' opinions about nurse clinicians sharing care with physicians. RESULTS: Of 343 graduates, 186 (54.2%) participated in the survey. Although as residents in family medicine their exposure to shared care with nurse clinicians was somewhat limited, respondents indicated that they were generally quite open to the idea of sharing care with nurse clinicians. More than 70% of respondents agreed or strongly agreed that nurse clinicians could adjust, according to protocols of clinical guidelines, the treatment of patients with diabetes, hypertension, and asthma, as well as regulate medication for pain control in terminally ill patients. By contrast, respondents were less favourable to nurse clinicians adjusting the treatment of patients with depression. More than 80% of respondents agreed or strongly agreed that nurse clinicians could initiate treatment via a medical directive for routine hormonal contraception, acne, uncomplicated cystitis, and sexually transmitted infections. Respondents' opinions on nurse clinicians initiating treatment for pharyngitis and otitis were more divided. CONCLUSION: Graduating family physicians are quite open to collaborating with nurse clinicians. Although they have observed some collaboration between physicians and nurses, there are areas of shared clinical activities in which they would benefit from further exposure and training.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.019
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.053
Threshold uncertainty score0.105

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.019
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.069
GPT teacher head0.426
Teacher spread0.356 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
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

Citations4
Published2014
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePubMed→Same topicInterprofessional Education and Collaboration→French-language works237,207→