Physician recruitment and retention in Manitoba: results from a survey of physicians' preferences for rural jobs.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Rural recruitment and retention continues to present challenges to health workforce planners. This paper reports and analyzes the results of a survey sent to physicians in Manitoba, eliciting their opinions regarding rural jobs. METHODS: A survey was sent to all physicians in Manitoba. Part 1 of the survey included questions about background and demographic information; part 2 was a set of job satisfaction questions regarding respondents' current job; and part 3 included 2 sets of stated-choice questions eliciting preferences for a set of attributes relevant to rural recruitment and retention. RESULTS: Of the 2487 physicians who received surveys, 561 (22.6%) responded. Respondents indicated that income, hours worked and on-call frequency are very important: overall job satisfaction increased with income and decreased with hours worked. Income, hours and on-call frequency were ranked "very important" by the largest proportions of physicians. The estimated compensation for on-call more frequent than 1-in-4 was very high (82% of average income), and additional hours worked were worth $183 per hour. Other attributes that were important included professional interaction, housing availability and community incentives during the first year, which were valued at 11%-31% of annual income. CONCLUSION: Work-life balance is a key consideration for rural jobs, and there are incentives that can compensate for less desirable attributes.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".