Understanding issues in primary care: perspectives of primary care physicians
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective To explore and describe the perceptions of family physicians in a large urban centre regarding issues in primary care and to identify those issues that would impact provision of care in a primary care setting.Design Cross-sectional survey using interviews.Setting Urban centre in western Canada.Participants Eighty-two family physicians located in the central core of a large urban centre.Method Semi-structured interviews and thematic analysis were used to collect and analyse the data. Main findings Physicians identified a number of interrelated issues in community family practice including high overheads,time,lifestyle and family commitments,staffin g issues,lack of communication among providers and between providers and the health region,and technology. These issues impacted their quality of work life,caus ing a sense of being overwhelmed,frust rated,isolated,pow erless anddisillusioned. The participants recommended changes that would benefit their practices,family medicine, and primary care reform.Conclusion Family practice is at a crossroads and new models of team-based care and alternative funding strategies are the preferred methods of implementing primary care reform.
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 | 0.007 | 0.017 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.011 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".