Do recent family physician graduates practice differently? A longitudinal study of primary care visits and continuity in four Canadian provinces
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Complaints about lack of access to family physicians (FPs) has led to concerns about the role recent physician graduates have had in changes in the supply of primary care services in Canada. This study investigates the impact of career stage, time period, and graduation cohort on family physician practice volume and continuity over two decades. Methods: Retrospective-cohort study of family physician practice from 1997/98 to 2017/18. Administrative health and physician claims data were collected in British Columbia, Manitoba, Ontario and Nova Scotia. The study included all physicians registered with their respective provincial regulatory colleges with a medical specialty of family practice and/or billed the provincial health insurance system for patient care as family physicians. Median polish analysis of patient contacts and physician-level continuity was completed to isolate years-in-practice, period, and cohort effects. Results: Median patient contacts per provider fell over time in the four provinces examined. In all four provinces, median contacts increased with years in practice until mid-to-late-career and declined into end-of-career. We found no relationship between graduation cohort and practice volume or FP-level continuity. Interpretation: Recent cohorts of family physicians practice similarly to predecessors in terms of practice volumes and continuity of care. Since FPs of all career stages show declining patient contacts, system-wide solutions to recent challenges in the accessibility of primary care in Canada are needed.
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".