A qualitative study exploring the influence of clinic funding on the integration of family practice nurses in Newfoundland and Labrador
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIM: This study explores the contributions of family practice nurses in primary care across Newfoundland and Labrador funded by fee-for-service and alternate payment plans to examine the influence of funding arrangements on nursing roles/activities. DESIGN: A qualitative descriptive design was employed. METHODS: Semi-structured telephone interviews were conducted between March-July 2018 with physicians and Registered Nurses working in primary care settings in Newfoundland and Labrador. Interviews were transcribed verbatim, and a content analysis approach was used to identify recurring themes. RESULTS: Clinic funding was instrumental in the integration of family practice nurses into primary care settings and influenced roles/activities. In fee-for-service practices, nurses work with physicians and focus on one-on-one patient care in office-based settings, whereas nurses in alternate payment plans practices work more independently, in a wider range of settings and with emphasis on both individual and group-based encounters. Compared with alternate payment plans practices, fee-for-service practices tend to be more restrictive due to physician billing requirements.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.006 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.012 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".