MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Commentaries on health services research

2013· article· en· W4239890213 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Theresa E. Hegemann, Luppo Kuilman, Keren H. Wick

Bibliographic record

VenueJAAPA · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicPrimary Care and Health Outcomes
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Box 1This study of clinically active PAs and their “intent to retire” breaks new ground; yet leaves much unanswered. The title reminds readers that this relatively young profession is mature enough to consider retirement. The demographics of the surveyed PAs are a little startling compared to PA school classes, which are predominately young women. The sample was near gender parity (54% male) and the average age at graduation was 34 years. As with many workforce issues, it is tempting to compare PAs with physicians. A 2006 study by Landon and colleagues showed a strong relationship between physician job satisfaction levels and leaving practice: dissatisfied physicians were two to three times more likely to retire.1 This study had a large and nationally representative sample of physicians (n=16,581), with a prospective design and well-defined outcome measures, and could serve as a model for PA-focused research. The authors of this intriguing study express concern that recent trends toward decreasing job satisfaction by physicians may exacerbate the projected physician shortage. As the PA profession continues to mature, the issue of PA retirement should be revisited often, ideally with prospective studies that can elucidate the role of multiple factors and help identify workforce trends.2 If increased job satisfaction turns out to predict later retirement age in PAs-–as it appears to do in physicians–-and PAs continue to have high job satisfaction, perhaps PAs will continue to work into their 60s, 70s, and beyond. Commentary by Theresa E. HegemannBox 2Box 3Reading about German physicians' willingness to delegate home visits to PAs, one might get the impression that the German physician assistant profession is well established and growing. However the authors have used an incorrect name for care professionals (to whom specific tasks are sometimes delegated) as PAs: a literal translation from German into English. The potential harm for the PA profession is the loose use of professional nomenclature. This unfortunate use of the term PA is further propagated when the authors insert references of articles about US PAs to support the theoretical grounding, without knowing the content. Even though the Arzthelferin (AH) and Praxis assistentin (P.ast) are long-established German professions, and support the physician's work, they are not comparable to PAs known in the United States, Canada, Australia, the United Kingdom, and the Netherlands. These Medizinisch Fachangestellten (medical assistants) are clinical assistants and are not the medical model PAs.1 However, to confuse matters, Germany is experimenting with formally trained PAs, and training similar to that in the United States and other countries began in 2005.2 PAs in Germany are trained at the bachelor's level and perform medical tasks similar to the scope of practice of their colleagues working in other countries. Although the German PA profession is still in development, German PAs are physician-supervised providers whose tasks are delegated by physicians. The PA workforce in Germany is beginning to take root and the state of Baden Württemberg has adopted a law providing PA training that appears more like the more recognized model. Such legislation may help non-German readers to understand the new movement under way in Germany. Commentary by Luppo KuilmanBox 4The rapid growth in the number of PA educational programs coincides with reports that the PA profession is one of the most desirable careers in the country. In 2013, PA programs had at least three times more applicants than available seats. Does it matter where a student attends PA school? Cawley and Jones have identified a notable difference in tuition at PA schools housed in public versus private institutions. They also discuss the disproportionately higher number of privately-sponsored programs established in recent decades. What remains unanswered is whether the higher debt incurred at private institutions translates into lower rates of new graduates entering primary care. Despite the much-discussed anticipated need for increased primary care clinicians as health reform is implemented, PAs are practicing in primary care at historically low rates. One theory is that the increasing choice of specialty practice by PAs may be more economic than institutionally influenced. The next step in this conversation is to determine whether student debt influences specialty choice. Commentary by Keren H. Wick

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: Commentary
Teacher disagreement score0.238
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0020.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.015

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.

Opus teacher head0.153
GPT teacher head0.547
Teacher spread0.394 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreCommentary

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJAAPASame topicPrimary Care and Health OutcomesFrench-language works237,207