Pushing for partnership: physician engagement and resistance in primary care renewal
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: Healthcare policymakers and managers struggle to engage private physicians, who tend to view themselves as independent of the system, in new models of primary care. The purpose of this paper is to examine this issue through a social identity lens. DESIGN/METHODOLOGY/APPROACH: Through in-depth interviews with 33 decision-makers and 31 fee-for-service family physicians, supplemented by document review and participant observation, the authors studied a Canadian province's early efforts to engage physicians in primary care renewal initiatives. FINDINGS: Recognizing that the existing physician-system relationship was generally distant, decision-makers invested effort in relationship-building. However, decision-makers' rhetoric, as well as the design of their flagship initiative, evinced an attempt to proceed directly from interpersonal relationship-building to the establishment of formal intergroup partnership, with no intervening phase of supporting physicians' group identity and empowering them to assume equal partnership. The invitation to partnership did not resonate with most physicians: many viewed it as an inauthentic offer from an out-group ("bureaucrats") with discordant values; others interpreted partnership as a mere transactional exchange. Such perceptions posed barriers to physician participation in renewal activities. PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS: The pursuit of a premature degree of intergroup closeness can be counterproductive, heightening physician resistance. ORIGINALITY/VALUE: This study revealed that even a relatively subtle misalignment between a particular social identity management strategy and its intergroup context can have highly problematic ramifications. Findings advance the literature on social identity management and may facilitate the development of more effective engagement strategies.
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 | 0.023 | 0.044 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.020 | 0.031 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.012 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| 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".