Factors that Influence Canadian Physician Assistants to Practice Rurally: A Survey Response
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A shortage of healthcare professionals is considered to be a driving force behind access barriers in rural Canada. The use of Physician assistants (PAs) as healthcare providers in remote areas can help mitigate this shortage. There is currently no research available on rural Canadian PAs to assess factors that influence the choice to practice rurally. This study examined specific factors influencing currently practicing rural Canadian PAs to choose their rural practice. This study also assessed whether a rural upbringing or participating in a rural rotation positively related to choosing to practice medicine rurally. This is a cross-sectional descriptive study conducted through an electronic survey. The primary outcomes of this study included examining the significance of 12 factors on the choice to practice rurally as well as whether completing a rural rotation or having a rural upbringing significantly correlated to rural practice. The top three factors most significantly influencing a PA's decision to practice rurally were (1) increased level of autonomy, (2) type of practice, (3) scope of practice. There was a positive relationship between having a rural upbringing and practicing rurally (X2 (1, N = 61) = 30.47, p
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 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".