“A Band-Aid Solution”: Policy Maker and Primary Care Provider Perspectives on the Value of Attachment Incentives
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Approximately 15% of Canadians are without a primary care provider ("unattached"). To address "unattachment," several provinces introduced a financial incentive for family physicians who attach new patients. A descriptive qualitative approach was used to explore perspectives of patient access and attachment to primary care. Semi-structured qualitative interviews were conducted with family physicians, nurse practitioners and policy makers in Nova Scotia. Thematic analysis was performed to identify participant perspectives on the value and efficacy of financial incentives to promote patient attachment. Three themes were identified: (1) positive impacts of the incentive, (2) shortcomings of the incentive and (3) alternative strategies to strengthen primary healthcare. Participants felt that attachment incentives may offer short-term solutions to patient unattachment; however, financial incentives cannot overcome systemic challenges. Participants recommended alternative policy levers to strengthen primary healthcare, including addressing the shortage of primary care providers and developing remuneration and practice models that support sustainable patient attachment.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".