Residents’ perceptions of patient management and the value placed on family medicine
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective To document the perceptions that family medicine residents have of patient management. Design Bilingual, quantitative questionnaire consisting of 10 questions. Setting Quebec. Participants All (n = 747) family medicine residents in Quebec. Main outcome measures The questionnaire was designed to capture residents’ perceptions of patient management, their plans to incorporate patient management into their practice, and how they thought this aspect of family medicine practice should be promoted. Results In all, 289 residents (38.7%) completed the questionnaire. Of these, 201 reported that they planned to accept patients during their first 5 years of practice. The most common inhibiting factors were the difficulty of taking time off, complex cases, and the responsibilities that come with continuity of care. Neither Quebec’s regional medical staffing plans nor its specific medical activities emerged as important inhibiting factors. Respondents indicated that raising the profile of family medicine could be achieved by promoting it to medical students, changing the institutional culture, and increasing the visibility of family medicine residents and supervisors on the teams working in training settings. Conclusion Quebec residents plan to include patient management in their practices. However, solutions must be found for the heavy burden of responsibility that comes with an office practice and for continuing to make patient management appealing to young family physicians.
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 | 0.002 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".