Well-being of family medicine graduates.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To determine family medicine graduates' professional and personal well-being, general health status, stress levels, coping strategies, and the degree to which they felt supported or isolated in professional life; and to compare findings by sex, practice location, and location of medical school (Canadian medical graduates [CMGs] vs international medical graduates [IMGs]). DESIGN: Retrospective, cross-sectional survey. SETTING: University of Alberta in Edmonton and the University of Calgary in Alberta. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 651 graduates who completed one of the family medicine residency programs during 2006 to 2011. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Using a 5-point Likert scale, graduates rated their general health status, their personal and professional well-being, their level of stress, and the degree to which they felt supported or isolated in professional life. Respondents also identified important life events, their caregiving roles, and stress-coping strategies. RESULTS: = .03), turned to spiritual or religious practices for stress management. Of all respondents, 54.8% felt highly or extremely supported and 18.4% felt isolated in their professional lives. CONCLUSION: While family medicine graduates are primarily healthy and have a strong sense of personal and professional well-being, many experience high levels of stress. Coping strategies generally include social contact with family, friends, or colleagues and differ by sex, whether respondents are CMGs or IMGs, and practice location. Professional isolation appears to be prevalent in both rural and urban practice locations. Physician well-being programs should include a multifaceted approach to accommodate a range of physician preferences.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 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) | 0.003 | 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".