Effects of extending residencies on the supply and quality of family medicine practitioners; difference-in-differences evidence from the implementation of mandatory family medicine residencies in Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
I examine the impacts of extending residency training programs on the supply and quality of physicians practicing primary care. I leverage mandated extended residency lengths for primary care practitioners that were rolled out over 20 years in Canada on a province-by-province basis. I compare these primary care specialties to other specialties that did not change residency length (first difference) before and after the policy implementation (second difference) to assess how physician supply evolved in response. To examine quality outcomes, I use a set of scraped data and repeat this difference-in-differences identification strategy for complaints resulting in censure against physicians in Ontario. I find declines in the number of primary care providers by 5% for up to nine years after the policy change. These changes are particularly pronounced in new grads and younger physicians suggesting that the policy change dissuaded these physicians from entering primary care residencies. I find no impacts on quality of physician as measured by public censure of physicians. This suggests that extending primary care training caused declines in physician supply without any concomitant improvement in the quality of these physicians. This has implications for current plans to extend residency training programs.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.006 | 0.039 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".