Professional contacts between doctors and social workers : a comparative survey of awareness and utilization of services, Vancouver, B.C., 1963.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In most modern communities, a large array of health services and welfare services are at least potentially available to all. Whether any individual or family receives a co-ordinated balanced welfare service, however, depends on many factors, including the extent to which two "helping professions", social work (as represented by social workers employed in various agencies) and medicine (as represented by general practitioners) know of each other's services and actually work together. The present study is a preliminary survey of the situation. As background, the impact of industrialization and urbanization on the development and contemporary roles of medicine and social work is reviewed. Information for this qualitative study was obtained through questionnaires submitted to sample groups of doctors and social workers. The purpose of the questionnaires was to gain some definition of the concept of "reciprocal awareness and utilization". In each case, the attempt was made to evaluate the knowledge one profession had of the other's role and function, and the extent to which this knowledge was used for the benefit of the population they served. In addition, directors of three key agencies were interviewed to determine their views on the role of the agency in furthering reciprocal awareness and utilization. The findings of the study indicate that a fairly typical situation is that the doctor's awareness of the social worker's role and function is limited and outdated. Social workers, in general, are more aware of the doctor's role and function, but on the other hand, their expectations are somewhat high and perhaps unrealistic. As indicated by the test of referral patterns, the utilization of each other's resources is minimal. The doctor's utilization of social work skills and resources is hampered by two facts: (a) patients have mixed feelings about being referred, and (b) doctors believe that agency policy and procedure is ineffective and frustrating. There is evidence that besides not recognizing a modern social worker's role and function, general practitioners appear to underestimate social and emotional factors in illness. Reciprocity, the main concept evaluated in this study, is minimal. Both doctors and social workers recognized that there are gains to be realized from more co-operation and some methods are recommended; but the low degree of reciprocal awareness and utilization existing between doctors and social workers must be tackled by recognizing that rather than lack of communication, faulty and hostile communication is the issue. This does not necessarily apply to medicine and social work in institutional settings and this difference demands further exploration.
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".