Canadian family physician job satisfaction - is it changing in an evolving practice environment? An analysis of the 2013 National Physician Survey database
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: To explore the determinants of job satisfaction and work-life balance satisfaction of family physicians in Canada. METHODS: This is a secondary analysis of the Canadian 2013 National Physician's Survey using descriptive statistics and binomial logistic regression. An estimated 34,753 family physicians practicing in Canada at the time of survey administration in 2013 were eligible for the survey. The main outcome measures were respondent satisfaction with professional life and satisfaction with work-life balance. RESULTS: The survey had a response rate of 17%. Seventy-two percent of respondents were satisfied with their professional lives, and 49% were satisfied with their work-life balance. Male family physicians had lower odds of satisfaction with their work-life balance than their female counterparts (OR = 0.86, 95% CI 0.82-0.92). Family physicians using an electronic medical record had higher odds of dissatisfaction with their professional lives (OR = 1.13, 95% CI 1.05-1.22) and work-life balance (OR = 1.22, 95% CI 1.15-1.30) than those not using an EMR. Family physicians not in a focused practice had greater odds of dissatisfaction (OR = 1.61, 95% CI 1.50-1.72) with both their professional lives and work-life balance (OR = 1.29, 95% CI 1.22-1.37) compared to their colleagues who have one or more areas of clinical focus. CONCLUSIONS: Canadian family physicians are more satisfied with their professional lives than with their work-life balance. Novel findings that family physicians with one or more clinical areas of focus are more satisfied with their work and work-life balance satisfaction, and that family physicians using electronic health records are less satisfied with their work and their work-life balance merit further inquiry.
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 | 0.007 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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".