General practitioners’ perspective on poverty: a qualitative study in Montreal, Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Social inequalities in healthcare systems persist worldwide. Physicians' prejudices and negative attitudes towards people living in poverty are one of the determinants of healthcare inequalities. We know very little about general practitioners' (GPs) perceptions of poverty, which shape their attitudes. Objective: To identify the perceptions of poverty of GPs who deal with it in everyday practice. Methods: A qualitative study based on interviews with GPs working in deprived urban neighbourhoods. In-depth semi-structured interviews were conducted with physicians working in disadvantaged neighbourhoods in Montreal, Canada. Interviews were audio-recorded and transcribed verbatim. Analysis consisted of interview debriefing, transcript coding, and thematic analysis using an inductive and iterative approach. Results: Our study revealed two contrasting perceptions of poverty. The global conception of poverty referred to social determinants and was shared by the majority of physicians interviewed, while the moral conception, centring on individual responsibility, was shared by a minority of participants. Conclusion: The moral judgments and misunderstandings evidenced by GPs regarding poverty suggest avenues for improving general medical training. Understanding social determinants of health should be an important component of this training, to improve access to care for people living in poverty.
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 | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".