General practitioner perspectives on referrals to paediatric public specialty clinics.
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Changes in the demography of Australia have resulted in changes in patterns of primary care delivery. One of these changes is that the proportion of paediatric visits has decreased. OBJECTIVE: The objectives of the article are to examine patient, practice and personal factors that influence a general practitioner's (GP's) decision to refer patients for paediatric specialty care, and investigate referral goals and experience with shared care. METHODS: A mail survey was sent out to 400 GPs who had referred at least two children to public hospital specialty clinics during 2014. RESULTS: The response rate for the mail survey was 67%. The factors most commonly reported by GPs as 'Somewhat important' or 'Very important' in the decision to refer were whether they had enough knowledge of a specific condition (81%) or did not have experience with similar patients (75%). About one-quarter (26%) of GPs reported that a parental request 'Frequently' or 'Almost always' influenced their referral decision. A similar pro-portion (26%) placed importance on whether they had sufficient time for a specific patient. DISCUSSION: Understanding the perspectives and determinants of GP referrals for paediatric specialty care is important, especially in the context of changing patterns of primary care delivery.
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.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
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 it