Staff perceptions of community health centre team function in Ontario.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To examine perceptions of different staff groups about team functioning in mature, community-governed, interprofessional primary health care practices. DESIGN: Cross-sectional online survey. SETTING: The 75 community health centres (CHCs) in Ontario at the time of the study, which have cared for people with barriers to access to traditional health services in community-governed, interprofessional settings, providing medical, social, and community services since the 1970s. PARTICIPANTS: Managers and staff of primary care teams in the CHCs. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Scores on the short version of the Team Climate Inventory (with subscales addressing vision, task orientation, support for innovation, and participative safety), the Organizational Justice Scale (with subscales addressing procedural justice and interactional justice), and the Organizational Citizenship Behavior Scale, stratified by staff group (clinical manager, FP, nurse practitioner [NP], registered nurse, medical secretary, social worker, allied health provider, counselor, outreach worker, and administrative assistant). RESULTS: A total of 674 staff members in 58 of 75 (77%) CHCs completed surveys. All staff groups generally reported positive perceptions of team function. The procedural justice subscale showed the greatest variation between groups. Family physicians and NPs rated procedural justice much lower than nurses and administrators did. CONCLUSION: This study provides a unique view of the perceptions of different groups of staff in a long-standing interprofessional practice model. Future research is needed to understand why FPs and NPs perceive procedural justice more negatively than other team members do, and whether such perceptions affect outcomes such as staff turnover and health outcomes for 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.
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".