Geographic variation in FP and GP scope of practice in Ontario: Comparative provincial study.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To describe and compare the scope of practice (SoP) of GPs and FPs between the rural northern, rural southern, urban northern, and urban southern regions of Ontario. DESIGN: Cross-sectional retrospective analysis of the 2013 College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario official register and annual membership renewal survey data. SETTING: Ontario. PARTICIPANTS: All independently practising GPs and FPs with a primary practice address in Ontario. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: For each of the 4 regions, we determined the distribution of GPs and FPs, the mean number of hours worked per week, the mean number of clinical activities reported, the proportion of GPs and FPs reporting specific clinical activities, and the proportion of time dedicated to each activity. RESULTS: The rural north has 2.4% of the province's GPs and FPs, who on average report working more hours per week (a total of 50.82 hours a week) than practitioners in all other regions do. Rural northern and rural southern GPs and FPs report participating in more types of clinical activities than their urban counterparts do. The types of clinical activities reported vary across regions. For example, 13.3% of GPs and FPs in the urban south reported that emergency medicine was an aspect of their clinical activities, compared with 57.5% in the rural north. Urban GPs and FPs engage in fewer clinical activities and thus spend proportionately more time on each clinical activity than rural GPs and FPs do, indicating that clinical practice concentration and narrower SoP is more common in urban practices. CONCLUSION: The SoP for GPs and FPs is not uniform across Ontario. Rural physicians work more hours and engage in a broader spectrum of clinical activities. Clinical activity variation was found across all practice locations, indicating that SoP is driven by patient and community needs, which vary from region to region. Our findings are relevant for rural and northern policy and program development in medical education, continuing professional development, and physician recruitment and retention.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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".