Bibliographic record
Abstract
In recent years, the health and well-being of medical students and doctors in Australia has been extensively discussed and written about by a wide range of organisations including the Australian Medical Students Association, the Royal Australian College of General Practitioners and the Australian Medical Association. (1) This has resulted in some excellent documents that provide detailed advice to students and medical practitioners about how to maintain health and wellbeing. Over the same period of time, the long standing state--based [dagger] doctors' health advisory services (DHASs) have joined forces to establish the Australasian Doctors' Health Network (which also includes the New Zealand DHAS) and a conference on doctors health is convened every second year. Available data indicate that Australian medical students and doctors experience similar degrees of stress, burnout and anxiety as do their counterparts in other developed nations. Mental illness including depression and suicide, alcohol and other substance abuse, and other illnesses associated with potential impairment also occur with similar frequency. (2) Thus the work of medical regulators and doctors' health services in Australia is likely to be very similar to that of their Canadian counterparts. Despite the existence of firm ethical guidance to doctors from both the Medical Board of Australia (3) and the Australian Medical Association, (4) approximately 50% of Australian doctors do not have an identified general practitioner (family doctor) and many choose to self-diagnose, self-prescribe or self-refer for investigations or to specialists. (5) Under the health care system (Medicare), self-referral by doctors unfortunately is permitted. While medical schools are now placing greater emphasis on educating students about their professional responsibilities in regard to their own health and the need for doctors to have their own general practitioner, it is too early to determine if this is having any impact on behaviour. Doctors' health advisory services exist in every state and territory. (6) These organisations are staffed predominantly on an honorary basis and provide telephone advice and triage for distressed doctors and medical students. Advice can be sought anonymously and the service is confidential. The exceptions are in Victoria and South Australia. In Victoria in 2001, the then Medical Practitioners Board, in partnership with the Victorian Branch of the Australian Medical Association, established the Victorian Doctor's Health Program (VDHP), funded fully from annual medical registration renewal fees but managed at arm's length from the Medical Practitioners Board by an independent board. (7) Partly based on similar programs that have long existed in North America, VDHP provides free assistance to doctors and medical students via face to face triage and referral, care and monitoring agreements, support for families, rehabilitation and re-entry to work, education for the profession and research. More recently, South Australia has established a different service mode1. (8) This relatively stable situation has been disturbed by the introduction in July 2010 of a new scheme for the registration of all health professionals. Under this scheme, the Medical Board of Australia has assumed the role previously played by the state and territory medical boards. The new scheme was five years in the making, commencing with a 435 page report commissioned by the Council of Australian Governments and prepared by the Australian Productivity Commission in 2005 entitled Australia's Health Workforce. (9) This led to the establishment of the Australian Health Practitioners Regulation Agency (AHPRA) (10) covering the registration of all health professionals and the accreditation of providers of health education and training. The new is known informally as the national law but its formal title is the Health Practitioner Regulation National Law. …
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 | 0.004 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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".