Northern Ontario's Rural Physician Teams: Who, why and for how long
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: This study examines the state of Rural and Northern Physician Group Agreement (RNPGA) physician teams in rural Northern Ontario in terms of demographics, intent to stay, length of stay, number of physicians relative to the RNPGA-designated complement and perceptions of various workplace and community factors. Materials and Methods: Data were based on a survey mailed, in 2018, to Ontario physicians in RNPGA communities having a designated complement of 2 or more physicians. Physicians reported on aspects of the work environment, community and intentions to stay. Results: Sixty-five percent of all practices and 91.7% of those with a designated complement of 2 physicians were at or above their government-designated complement. Intent to stay was higher in groups below complement. The mean length of stay was 11.3 years. More physicians were male (58.7%). Older physicians were more represented in smaller practice groups. Physicians reported positive ratings on several aspects of their work environment, community and intentions to stay. Length of stay in the community was related to strong family ties and was a predictor of intent to stay. Many physicians had neither strong family ties (65.3%) nor a rural upbringing (57.3%). Conclusion: The results show positive outcomes in terms of: high intentions to stay, satisfaction with workplace and community factors, and full recruitment into RNPGA groups designated for a complement of two physicians. Further research is needed to understand the role of family ties to length of stay, and the role of level of physician complement and group size in retention and recruitment.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".