Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To determine factors associated with having a focused practice among a sample of family medicine graduates in Canada and to assess the characteristics of FPs with focused practices and the range of services provided by these FPs in relation to the full scope of office-based care. DESIGN: Secondary analyses of cross-sectional data from the 2013-2014 Western Family Medicine Resident Follow-Up Survey. SETTING: Western University in London, Ont. PARTICIPANTS: Western University family medicine residency graduates who completed the program between 1985 and 2012. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Physician and practice characteristics and the clinical services that survey participants provide. RESULTS: Completion of postgraduate third-year (PGY3) training was associated with having a focused practice. Focused practice FPs were more likely to be remunerated by fee-for-service, alternative payment plans, or alternative funding plans compared with non-focused practice FPs, who were more likely to participate in group payment models. Focused practice FPs appeared to be a heterogeneous group who were distinguished by being either an office-based focused practice FP (OBFFP) or a non-office-based focused practice FP (NOBFFP). Office-based focused practice FPs were less likely than NOBFFPs to have completed PGY3 training and more likely to work under a fee-for-service or group payment model. Further, the OBFFP group offered a greater variety of primary care services than the NOBFFP group, but offered less variety than non-focused practice FPs. CONCLUSION: Completion of PGY3 training and payment through certain remuneration models were both associated with focused practice. Important differences exist between OBFFPs and NOBFFPs. The overall service provision of focused practice FPs was centred on specialized areas, especially among those practising in non-office-based settings. Novel findings from this study provide insights for family medicine education, work force planning, and policy making in the Canadian health system.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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".