After-hours care in Canada: analysis of the 2001 National Family Physician Workforce Survey.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To determine family physicians' availability to their general practice patients after hours and to explore the characteristics and determinants of after-hours services. DESIGN: Secondary analysis of the 2001 National Family Physician Workforce Survey. SETTING: Canada. PARTICIPANTS: Canadian family physicians and general practitioners currently in practice (n = 10,553). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Provision of after-hours care, defined as providing care to all practice patients outside of normal office hours. RESULTS: Sixty-two percent of Canadian family physicians reported providing after-hours service. The lowest rates were found in Quebec (34%) and the highest in Alberta and Saskatchewan (88%). Respondents practising in academic and community clinics, offering selective medical services (emergency care, palliative care, housecalls, after-hours care), or living outside of Ontario or Quebec were more likely to provide after-hours care. Women physicians, those practising in walk-in clinics, or physicians primarily paid by fee-for-service were less likely to do so. Urban versus rural location, organization of practice (solo or group), age of physician, country of graduation, and physician satisfaction were not found to significantly affect the likelihood of providing after-hours services. CONCLUSION: Knowledge of these factors can be used to inform policy development for after-hours service arrangements, which is particularly relevant today, given provincial governments' interests in exploring alternative payment plans and primary care reform options.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".