Connecting unattached patients to comprehensive primary care: a rapid review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Lack of access to primary care providers (PCPs) is a significant hurdle to receiving high-quality comprehensive health care and creates greater reliance on emergency departments and walk-in clinics. METHODS: We conducted a rapid review and analysis of the literature that discusses approaches to increasing access to continuous care for patients with no PCP ('unattached patients'). RESULTS: Five distinct themes across 38 resources were identified: financial incentives for patients and providers, health care organization, policy intervention, virtual care and health information technology (HIT), and medical education. Approaches that increased attachment were primary care models that combined two or more of these and reflected the Patient's Medical Home (PMH) model. CONCLUSIONS: Although there are individual initiatives that could allow for temporary relief, long-term and community-wide success lies in designing models of primary care that use multiple tools, meet the needs of the community, and are supported by regional, provincial, and national policies.
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 | 0.009 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.009 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.008 |
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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".