Factors influencing focused practice: A qualitative study of resident and early-career family physician practice choices
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background Although focused practice within family medicine may be increasing globally, there is limited research on the factors contributing to decisions to focus practice. We aimed to examine the factors influencing resident and early-career family physician choices of focused practice across three Canadian provinces. Methods We analyzed a subset of qualitative interview data from a study across British Columbia, Ontario, and Nova Scotia. A total of 22 resident family physicians and 38 early-career family physicians in their first 10 years of practice who intend to or currently practice in a focused area were included in our analysis. We compared participant types, provinces, and the degree of focused practice while identifying themes related to factors influencing the pursuit of focused practice. Results We identified three key themes of factors contributing to choices of focused practice: self-preservation within the current health care system, support from colleagues, and experiences in medical school and/or residency. Minor themes included alignment of practice with skills, personal values, or ability to derive professional satisfaction; personal lived experiences; and having many attractive opportunities for focused practice. Interpretation Both groups of participants unanimously viewed focused practice as a way to circumvent the burnout or exhaustion they associated with comprehensive practice in the current structure of the health care. This finding, in addition to other influential factors, was consistent across the three provinces. More research is needed to understand the implications of resident and early-career family physician choices of focused practice within the physician workforce.
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 | 0.013 | 0.021 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.012 | 0.010 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".