[Are new forms of primary health care organization (PHLU) associated with a better health care experience for patients with chronic diseases in Quebec?].
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIM: To assess the extent to which new forms of PHC organization - Family medicine groups (FMG) and Network clinics (NC) - established in Quebec since 2003, are associated with a better experience of care than other forms of PHC organization, for patients with chronic diseases. METHODS: Two surveys were conducted in 2010 in two regions of Quebec: the first among 9,180 residents and the second among 606 PHC organizations. Indices of experience of care were constructed concerning accessibility, continuity, comprehensiveness and perceived outcomes. Five categories of chronic diseases were selected. Descriptive analyses and multilevel regression analyses were conducted to compare the different forms of PHC organization. RESULTS: Individuals with chronic diseases tend to report a better experience of care than those without chronic diseases for all dimensions except for accessibility. FMGs compare to group practices on all dimensions and NCs are associated with a poorer experience of care on most dimensions. CONCLUSION: Experience of care associated with FMGs and NCs is not superior to that associated with group practices.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".