Paramedics’ perspectives of the community paramedic role in Ontario, Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Community paramedicine (CP) expands the paramedic role to emergency call prevention, yet little research has examined paramedics’ perspectives of CP. Aims: This study sought to explore paramedics’ views regarding the CP role and training. Methods: A cross-sectional, web-based survey of Ontario paramedics measured perceptions, support and interest in CP. Descriptive and regression analyses were conducted. Findings: Of the 452 participants, 57.5% were male, 43.6% primary care paramedics and 33.0% had a history of being on modified duty. Paramedics perceived CP to include treat-and-release (85.4%), community resource referrals (79.0%), expanded skills (77.9%), community education (75.9%) and follow-up (73.7%). Most were supportive (82.8%) and interested in participating (72.3%). Interest in training was lower in respondents with 20 or more years of service and higher in those with a history of modified duty (p<0.05). Conclusion: Paramedics are aware the CP role has multiple functions and are supportive and interested in CP. This study has implications for services as CP expands globally.
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 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.004 |
| 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".