Advanced Access in Primary Health Care: experiences from Brazil and Canada
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Access is the timely use of services in order to meet the needs of the user. As an alternative to the traditional model, the Advanced Access (AA) model appears in Canada , with schedules restricted to specific cases. Objectives: The purpose of this article is to analyze the existing scientific production about the Advanced Access model in Primary Health Care. Methods: Integrative literature review using the descriptors (1) “Health Care Accessibility” OR “Primary Health Care” AND and (2) "Advanced Access" in the PubMed, Scopus and BIREME databases. Selection criteria were studies published in the last five years, available in Portuguese, English or Spanish and dealing with the theme. Results: Eight studies were selected, six were grouped into two categories of analysis: “The Canadian experience with AA : a model in consolidation”; and “The Brazilian experience with AA: local experiments” and the other two contributed to enrich the discussion. The AA stands out to balance capacity and demand with physical infrastructure and adequate staff, both in the international arena, as the experiences of municipalities, improving the quality of APS. Conclusion: Studies that detail the AA in its practice, as well as the challenges and needs, can inspire other health units to study it and consider its implementation if it is appropriate for its context, aiming to improve the health and care of its population.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it