Physician satisfaction and practice intentions in Northwestern Ontario.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The goal of this research was to understand factors that affect future practice intentions of physicians who practise in rural and underserviced areas. The following 2 research questions are answered: "How many physicians in Northwestern Ontario intend to leave their practice in 5 years?" and "What is the association between professional, personal/family and community factors in physician satisfaction and intention to stay in practice?" METHODS: Between September and October 2004, physicians practising in Northwestern Ontario were mailed a survey measuring professional, personal/family and community satisfaction as well as future practice intentions. Future practice intention (question 1) was analyzed through a frequency distribution, while the factors that influenced intention (question 2) were analyzed using a 3-step process: a factor analysis, the creation of scales and a logistic regression. The themes of the scales emerging from the factor analysis were family/community, time, professional support and efficacy, and sense of belonging and appreciation. The means of these 4 scales were entered into a logistic regression model along with demographic variables that were independent predictors of future practice intention. RESULTS: Three hundred and twenty-eight physicians were sent the survey. After 3 consecutive mailings, the response rate was 61.3% (n=201). Over two-thirds of Northwestern Ontario physicians intended to remain in practice in 5 years; however, most of these physicians were from Thunder Bay, the only city (100 000+ population) in Northwestern Ontario. Physicians were significantly more likely to intend to stay in practice if they were younger, practised in Thunder Bay and scored higher on the family/community scale. CONCLUSION: These findings underscore the importance of addressing family and community factors, as opposed to strictly professional factors, in future retention initiatives.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".