Patients’ perceptions of team-based care in family practice: access, benefits and team roles
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION The increasing complexity of health care and escalating prevalence of multiple chronic conditions have driven interprofessional team-based care in family practice. Most published studies examine team-based care from the perspective of health professionals. The purpose of this study was to examine patients' perceptions of team-based care in family practice. METHODS This was a waiting room survey conducted in five family medicine academic teaching clinics in Edmonton, Alberta, Canada. Patients aged ≥18 years were invited to participate in a survey addressing patient access to team-based care, perceived benefits, preferred health professional and team member roles. RESULTS Of the 44.3% (565/1274) of respondents, 41.8% (231/552) reported receiving care from a team of health professionals, primarily for chronic disease management or pharmacy consultations. While there was a consistent pattern of patient perception that many aspects of care did not worsen with team-based care, improvements in knowledge of their medical condition (67.4%); the care received (65.0%); access to care (51.1%); ability to self-care (48.9%) and maintain their independence (43.7%); and overall health (51.1%) were reported. Some patients felt that team-based care reduced emergency visits (34.6%) and hospitalisations (29.9%), and 44.1% of patients felt that they had an active role on the team and made decisions about their care together with health professionals. CONCLUSION Patients perceive that team-based care in family practice has improved their knowledge and access to care, overall health and avoided some emergency department visits and hospital admissions. The findings support the continued development of team-based care in family practice.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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".