"Why are we working so hard?" A cross-sectional survey of factors influencing GP workload in the Eastern Regional Health Authority area.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
There is increasing evidence to suggest that the subjective workload of GPs in Ireland is too heavy. The aims of this study, therefore, were to identify the social and demographic issues that GPs perceive as being implicated in determining their workload. A self-administered questionnaire, inviting GPs to score a series of factors according to the degree to which it increased their workload, was sent to one-quarter of GPs practising in the Eastern Regional Health Authority (ERHA) area. The response rate was 71%. Seventy-nine (60%) felt their workload was 'too heavy,' while 109 (85%) felt they could improve the quality of care they provide, if their workload was reduced. Access to OPD services (mean score = 7.31), access to other hospital services (mean score = 7.16), and the number of elderly patients (mean score = 6.28) were considered to be the most important factors in determining workload. This paper describes the factors that impact on self-perceived workload for GPs, factors which need to be considered when planning and funding future developments in primary care.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".