A Descriptive-Comparative Study of Implementation and Performance of Family Physician Program in Iran and Selected Countries
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: The implementation of Family Physician Program (FPP) in Iran during the past decade, despite of its numerous achievements, has faced many challenges. We aimed to compare the implementation and the performance of FPP in Iran with selected countries, in order to analyze those challenges and suggest potential solutions. Methods: This current descriptive-comparative study was conducted in 2015. The implementation and the performance of the FPP in Iran and six countries (Canada, Australia, United Kingdom, Denmark, United States and the Netherlands) were described and compared. The criteria for selection of these countries were the existence of well-established FFPs and ease of access to data required to conduct the research. A documentation checklist of the implementation status and FPP practice was prepared. The checklist’s content validity was established by an independent 10 member expert panel, specializing in the field of Family Medicine. The conclusive checklist was finalized for each country, based on inter-rater agreement of the three researchers and used as a basis for this comparative study. Results: This study revealed significant differences in implementation of the FPP and relatively low differences in FPP performance between Iran and the selected countries. Conclusion: Implementation and performance of FPP and patient referral system in Iran struggles with serious challenges and burdens, in contrast with the selected reviewed countries. As such, modification of the FPP in Iran seems to be a must. Such modification may include developing educational programs for FPs, clearly defining the duties and practices of FPs, and revising their reimbursement and employment status.
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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".