Trust as the foundation: thoughts on the Starfield principles in Canada and Brazil: The Besrour Papers: a series on the state of family medicine in Canada and Brazil.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To compare primary care in Canada and Brazil and how both countries have embraced the Starfield principles in the design of their health care systems. COMPOSITION OF THE COMMITTEE: A subgroup of the Besrour Centre of the College of Family Physicians of Canada developed connections with colleagues in Brazil and collaborated to undertake a between-country comparison, comparing and contrasting various elements of both countries' efforts to strengthen primary care over the past few decades. METHODS: Following a literature review, the authors collectively reflected on their experiences in an attempt to explore the past and current state of family medicine in Canada and Brazil. REPORT: The Brazilian and Canadian primary care systems have both adopted and advanced the Starfield principles in various ways, with both countries showing an increasing trend toward adopting interprofessional team-based care. Access to primary care remains a challenge in rural areas in both countries, and longitudinal relationships between providers and patients appear to be more common in Canada. With the advent of technology, increasing patient engagement and expectations, the decline of paternalistic medicine, and the sheer mass of readily available information (and misinformation), to be successful, primary care systems must also be constructed to engender trust at both the local and the system levels. Both countries face challenges to maintaining trust in the context of the increasing prevalence of team-based care, and a lack of trust at the system level can be seen in patients' perceptions about the difficulty of finding a family doctor and in high rates of emergency department and urgent care centre use in both countries. Primary care reform must be implemented with the public's trust in mind. CONCLUSION: Trust is a crucial ingredient to the success of primary care and must be protected at both local and system levels. If designed with trust in mind, primary care in Canada and Brazil has the potential to meet the challenges set out by the Starfield principles.
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 | 0.018 | 0.038 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.024 | 0.027 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.014 | 0.011 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.010 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".