Integrating community paramedicine with primary health care: a qualitative study of community paramedic views
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Community paramedicine (CP) is an emerging model of care that addresses local health needs through programs led by community paramedics; however, CP remains poorly defined and appears to lack systematic integration with the broader health system, specifically primary care, within which it is seated. The purpose of the study was to elucidate the views of community paramedics and their stakeholders in Ontario, Canada, on the topic of integrating CP with the broader health system. METHODS: This was a retrospective qualitative analysis of a public recording of a CP provincial forum held in Ontario, Canada, in 2017. Forum attendees (paramedics and stakeholders) were invited by email if they had attended a similar provincial forum in the past (no exclusion criteria for attendance). In small- and large-group discussions, attendees discussed their views on how CP could fit into primary care and what medical oversight and acceptance for the profession could involve. A recording of the large-group discussion, which is publicly available, was transcribed and thematically analyzed. RESULTS: = 14). Five major themes emerged: defining the role of community paramedics, how CP may integrate with other services, how to garner support for CP, where standardization is needed and possible oversight structures. INTERPRETATION: Community paramedics and their stakeholders have insights into barriers and facilitators for integration with the health system. These study findings could help inform the integration of health and social services in Ontario with a consideration for the unique position and potential of community paramedics.
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 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 | 0.004 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".