“What do you mean I can’t have a doctor? this is Canada!” – a qualitative study of the myriad consequences for unattached patients awaiting primary care attachment
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Patient access to primary healthcare (PHC) is the foundation of a strong healthcare system and healthy populations. Attachment to a regular PHC provider, a key to healthcare access, has seen a decline in some jurisdictions. This study explored the consequences of unattachment from a patient perspective, an under-studied phenomenon to date. METHODS: A realist-informed qualitative study was conducted with unattached patients in Nova Scotia, Canada. Semi-structured interviews with nine participants were conducted and transcribed for analysis. The framework method was used to carry out analysis, which was guided by Donabedian's model of assessing healthcare access and quality. RESULTS: Five key findings were noted in this study: 1) Participants experienced a range of consequences from not having a regular PHC provider. Participants used creative strategies to 2) attempt to gain attachment to a regular PHC provider, and, to 3) address their health needs in the absence of a regular PHC provider. 4) Participants experienced negative feelings about themselves and the healthcare system, and 5) stress related to the consequences and added work of being unattached and lost care. CONCLUSIONS: Unattached patients experienced a burden of care related to lost care and managing their own health and related information, due to the download of medical record management and system navigation to them. These findings may underestimate the consequences for further at-risk populations who would not have been included in our recruitment. This may result in poorer health outcomes, which could be mitigated by interventions at the structural level, such as enhanced centralized waitlists to promote attachment. Such waitlists may benefit from a triage approach to appropriately attach patients based on need.
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 | 0.014 | 0.018 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.018 | 0.016 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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".