MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3016338317

PARTICIPATION OF PHYSICIANS IN PREVENTION ACTIVITIES -A PART OF THEIR OWN PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY FOR HEALTH

2019· article· en· W3016338317 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueKnowledge International Journal · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicGlobal Health Care Issues
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsQuarter (Canadian coin)Family medicineMedicineHealth careNursing
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Everyday physicians meet with patients and their families, with suffering and death, with the inability to help to each patient, with the lack of resources in healthcare, etc. They are responsible not only to their patients and to the healthcare system, but also to themselves. One of the most overlooked topics concerning their working position is caring for their own health. They are at the forefront of disease prevention and health promotion and should serve as an example, but often fall into unhealthy work patterns.The purpose of this publication is to investigate what was the participation of physicians in preventive activities (GP examinations, screening, prophylactic examinations) related to their own health status.Material and methods: A direct and anonymous questionnaire was conducted with physicians working in hospitals. The survey was based on a statistical sample, representative of the units and signs of the observation. It included doctors (n = 257), who worked in seven hospitals. The indications that determined the participation of the respondents in preventive measures related to their own health status were: not only the number of respondents with an officially selected GP, but also the number, reasons and period of their visits to him/her.Results and discussion: 98.8% of the studied physicians had a GP. Most often, they visited him/her once per an year (n = 88; 34.2%). 37.7% attended him/her two, three or more times per an year. Just over a quarter (28.00%) of the respondents said they had never met their GP. The most common reason (35.9%) for visiting GPs from hospital staff was the need for referrals, with approximately one in ten needing treatment (11.5%). In our study, 34.7% of the doctors surveyed visited GPs because of the need for prevention. Approximately half of the respondents went to a preventive examination in the last year and one third (30.7%) in the last 6 months. 11.7% of the respondents did not do preventive tests at all, and just over 2/3 of the respondents had done them in the last year.Conclusion: Hospital staff are becoming more and more important to our society because they are a significant part of the indispensable human resource responsible for providing medical services and care. Research has shown that health professionals often neglect their physical, emotional and social status, committed to helping others. One of the steps to taking personal responsibility for their health is to have a GP, to seek and participate in regular and independent preventive checkups through primary care. This will help them maintain and strengthen their own health, similar to what they desire for their patients.

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.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
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 score0.283
Threshold uncertainty score0.407

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
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 head0.082
GPT teacher head0.513
Teacher spread0.431 · 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