Value of a regional family practice residency training program site
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective To examine the perceptions of residents, nurses, and physicians about the effect of a regional family practice residency site on the delivery of health services in the community, as well as on the community health care providers. Design Interviews and focus groups were conducted. Setting Nanaimo, BC. Participants A total of 16 residents, 15 nurses, and 20 physicians involved with the family practice residency training program at the Nanaimo site. Methods A series of semistructured interviews and focus groups was conducted. Transcripts of interviews and focus groups were analyzed thematically by the research team. Main findings Overall, participants agreed that having a family practice residency training site in the community contributed to community life and to the delivery of health services in the following ways: increased community capacity and social capital; motivated positive relationships and attitudes in the hospital and community settings; improved communication and teamwork, as well as accessibility and understanding of the health care system; increased the standard of care; and facilitated the recruitment and retention of family physicians. Conclusion This family practice residency training site was beneficial for the community it served. Future planning for distributed medical education sites should take into account the effects of these sites on the health care community and ensure that they continue to be positive influences. Further research in this area could focus on patients’ perceptions of how residency programs affect their care, as well as on the effect of residency programs on wait times and workload for physicians and nurses.
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 | 0.003 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.019 | 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 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".