MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4323355638 · doi:10.1186/s12913-023-09211-2

Exploration of how primary care models influence job satisfaction among primary care providers during the COVID-19 pandemic in New Brunswick: a descriptive and comparative study

2023· article· en· W4323355638 on OpenAlexaffabout
Claire Johnson, Dominique Bourgoin, Jérémie B. Dupuis, Jenny Manuèle Félix, Véronique Leblanc, Danielle McLennan, Luveberthe St-Louis

Bibliographic record

VenueBMC Health Services Research · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicPrimary Care and Health Outcomes
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Moncton
Fundersnot available
KeywordsJob satisfactionMedicineBurnoutFamily medicineHealth careNursingHealth administrationPandemicDescriptive statisticsTest (biology)Patient satisfactionPublic healthPsychologyCoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)Social psychologyClinical psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic has highlighted human resource gaps and physician shortages in healthcare systems in New Brunswick (NB), as evidenced by multiple healthcare service interruptions. In addition, the New Brunswick Health Council gathered data from citizens on the type of primary care models (i.e. physicians in solo practice, physicians in collaborative practice, and collaborative practice with physicians and nurse practitioners) they use as their usual place of care. To add to their survey's findings, our study aims to see how these different primary care models were associated with job satisfaction as reported by primary care providers. METHODS: In total, 120 primary care providers responded to an online survey about their primary care models and job satisfaction levels. We used IBM's "SPSS Statistics" software to run Chi-square and Fisher's exact tests to compare job satisfaction levels between variable groups to determine if there were statistically significant variations. RESULTS: Overall, 77% of participants declared being satisfied at work. The reported job satisfaction levels did not appear to be influenced by the primary care model. Participants reported similar job satisfaction levels regardless of if they practiced alone or in collaboration. Although 50% of primary care providers reported having symptoms of burnout and experienced a decline in job satisfaction during the COVID-19 pandemic, the primary care model was not associated with these experiences. Therefore, participants who reported burnout or a decline in job satisfaction were similar in all primary care models. Our study's results suggest that the autonomy to choose a preferred model was important, since 45.8% of participants reported choosing their primary care models, based on preference. Proximity to family and friends and balancing work and family emerged as critical factors that influence choosing a job and staying in that job. CONCLUSION: Primary care providers' staffing recruitment and retention strategies should include the factors reported as determinants in our study. Primary care models do not appear to influence job satisfaction levels, although having the autonomy to choose a preferred model was reported as highly important. Consequently, it may be counterproductive to impose specific primary care models if one aims to prioritize primary care providers' job satisfaction and wellness.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.786
Threshold uncertainty score0.426

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.285
GPT teacher head0.495
Teacher spread0.210 · 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; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations6
Published2023
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBMC Health Services Research→Same topicPrimary Care and Health Outcomes→French-language works237,207→