Systemic challenges and resiliency in rural family practice
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: The objective of our study was to understand how Canadian rural family physicians (RFPs) define and use resilience strategies to maintain their roles as generalists and resist burnout, while also understanding how organisational supports and systems may play a role. Methods: This was a qualitative study of RFPs with at least 1 year of experience working in rural Canada. Data were collected via semi-structured, in-depth interviews using a grounded theory approach. The participant recruitment process involved purposive and theoretical sampling, and was stopped when theoretical saturation was reached. Results: RFPs identified the following five themes related to resilience: (1) powerlessness, (2) strained work/life balance, (3) colleagues as supportive or straining, (4) living under the microscope and (5) compassion fatigue or empathy. Strategies to enhance resilience were identified at personal, community and organisational levels by participants. Conclusion: Enhancing RFPs' awareness of the specific individual and organisational strategies, as well as system-oriented solutions to maintain resilience, is of benefit to RFPs and rural and remote communities across Canada.
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 | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".