MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2921701520

Retention in a 10-year cohort of internationally trained family physicians licensed in Manitoba.

2017· article· en· W2921701520 on OpenAlexaffabout
Stephanie Mowat, Martina Reslerova, Jeffrey Sisler

Bibliographic record

VenuePubMed · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicGlobal Health Workforce Issues
Canadian institutionsUniversity of ManitobaHealth Sciences CentreManitoba Health
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIMGLicensureMentorshipGraduation (instrument)CertificationMedicineFamily medicineWorkforceMedical educationGerontologyPolitical science
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

INTRODUCTION: International medical graduates (IMGs) seeking licensure in Canada have been recruited to practise in medically underserviced areas, but retention of these physicians remains a concern. This study explored retention of IMG family physicians in Manitoba and its predictors. METHODS: We used data from the University of Manitoba, provincial registries and Manitoba Health. Inclusion criteria were IMGs who completed University of Manitoba IMG training or assessment programs, and their return-of-service. Practice location, certification and licensure status were examined. We used logistic regression to consider the effects of a mentorship program, Manitoba residency at application, IMG program and years since program graduation on retention. RESULTS: = 0.007), explaining 10% of the variance in retention. Two predictors were significant: years since program graduation and Manitoba residency at the time of application. CONCLUSION: Long-term retention of IMG physicians remains a concern. Potential interventions likely to increase retention, such as Manitoba residency at application and a focus on mentorship programs, should be further explored.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.076
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.079
GPT teacher head0.374
Teacher spread0.295 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations9
Published2017
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePubMedSame topicGlobal Health Workforce IssuesFrench-language works237,207