Practice patterns of graduates of 2- and 3-year family medicine programs
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE To compare patterns of practice between graduates of core 2-year family medicine (FM) training programs and those completing an additional postgraduate year (PGY3) of training. DESIGN Retrospective cohort study using administrative data from the Ontario Health Insurance Plan. SETTING Ontario. PARTICIPANTS Graduates of Ontario FM residency programs from 1996 to 2002 who provided insured services in Ontario for 1 or more fiscal years between 1996 and 2004. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES Proportion of physician years of service in which a minimum number of services were provided in each of the following categories: anesthesia, emergency medicine (EM), home visits, hospital visits, nursing home visits, intrapartum obstetrics, palliative care, office-only practice, and rural locations, as well as deciles for proportion of billings for emergency department work and “quasi-specialty” designations based on billing patterns. Results are stratified by type of training and years in practice. RESULTS Graduates of PGY3 programs are significantly more likely to practise in a range of nonoffice settings than their counterparts who completed core 2-year FM training programs. Differences were the most marked in areas in which additional training had been undertaken, but also extended to other categories. There was no effect on the proportion practising in rural locations, unless the training was undertaken in a rural setting or in anesthesia. Physicians including EM in their practices were more likely to practise mostly or almost all EM if they had undertaken either EM programs or self-directed programs at non-northern training sites. Very few graduates of any type were classified as belonging to a quasi-specialty group, other than those who completed care of the elderly or palliative care (hospitalist) and anesthesia programs. CONCLUSION Completion of a PGY3 program is strongly associated with increased participation in practice outside the office, particularly in the area of the training provided.
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 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".