Exploring family physicians' reasons to continue or discontinue providing intrapartum care: Qualitative descriptive study.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To examine the reasons why family physicians continue or discontinue providing intrapartum care in their clinical practice. DESIGN: Qualitative descriptive study. SETTING: Two hospitals located in a multicultural area of Montreal, Que, in November 2011 to June 2012. PARTICIPANTS: Sixteen family physicians who were current or former providers of obstetric care. METHODS: Data were collected using semistructured qualitative interviews. Thematic analysis was used to analyze the interview transcripts. MAIN FINDINGS: Three overarching themes that help create understanding of why family doctors continue to provide obstetric care were identified: their attraction, often initiated by role models early in their careers, to practising complete continuity of care and accompanying patients in a special moment in their lives; the personal, family, and organizational pressures experienced while pursuing a family medicine career that includes obstetrics; and their ongoing reflection about continuing to practise obstetrics. CONCLUSION: The practice of obstetrics was very attractive to family physician participants whether they provided intrapartum care or decided to stop. More professional support and incentives might help keep family doctors practising obstetrics.
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 | 0.011 | 0.023 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".