Trends in Providing Out-of-Office, Urgent After-Hours, and On-Call Care in British Columbia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: Providing care in alternative (non-office) locations and outside office hours are important elements of access and comprehensiveness of primary care. We examined the trends in and determinants of the services provided in a cohort of primary care physicians in British Columbia, Canada. METHODS: We used physician-level payments for all primary care physicians practicing in British Columbia from 2006-2007 through 2011-2012. We examined the association between physician demographics and practice characteristics and payment for care in alternative locations and after hours across rural, urban, and metropolitan areas using longitudinal mixed-effects models. RESULTS: The proportion of physicians who provided care in alternative locations and after hours declined significantly during the period, in rural, urban, and metropolitan practices. Declines ranged from 5% for long-term care facility visits to 22% for after-hours care. Female physicians, and those in the oldest age category, had lower odds of providing care at alternative locations and for urgent after-hours care. Compared with those practicing in metropolitan centers, physicians working in rural areas had significantly higher odds of providing care both in alternative locations and after hours. CONCLUSION: Care provided in non-office locations and after office hours declined significantly during the study period. Jurisdictions where providing these services are not mandated, and where similar workforce demographic shifts are occurring, may experience similar accessibility challenges.
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".