MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4386851960 · doi:10.1186/s12875-023-02147-w

Family physicians’ questions about the COVID-19 pandemic: a content analysis of 2,272 helpline calls

2023· article· en· W4386851960 on OpenAlexaffabout
Allan McDougall, Jacqueline H. Fortier, Cathy Zhang, Caroline Ehrat, Kerri Best, Heather Blois, Gary Garber

Bibliographic record

VenueBMC Primary Care · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicCOVID-19 and Mental Health
Canadian institutionsOttawa HospitalUniversity of TorontoCanadian Medical Protective AssociationUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHelplinePandemicFamily medicinePublic healthHealth careMedicineContent analysisCoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)PsychologyNursingPolitical scienceDiseaseSociologyInfectious disease (medical specialty)Emergency medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: During the COVID-19 pandemic, family physicians faced challenges including travel restrictions for patients, lockdowns, diagnostic testing delays, and changing public health guidelines. Given that 95% of Canadian physicians are members of the Canadian Medical Protective Association (CMPA), the CMPA's telephone helpline - which offers peer-to-peer support - provides valuable insights into family physicians' experiences during the pandemic. METHODS: We used a content analysis approach to identify and understand family physicians' questions and concerns related to the COVID-19 pandemic expressed during calls to the Canadian Medical Protective Association (CMPA) telephone helpline. Calls were classified with preliminary codes and subsequently organized into themes. We collected aggregated data on calls, including province, call date, and whether the physician self-identified having hospital-based activities as part of their practice. Findings from the analysis were explored alongside family physician calls per month (call volume). RESULTS: Between 01 and 2020 and 31 December 2021, 2,272 family physician calls related to the pandemic were included for content analysis. We identified six major themes across these calls: challenging patient interactions; COVID-related care; the impact of the pandemic on the healthcare system; virtual care; physician obligations and rights; and public health matters. COVID-related call volumes were highest early in the pandemic especially among physicians without major hospital affiliation when family physicians practiced with little guidance on how to balance patient care and scarce resources in the face of a novel pandemic. CONCLUSIONS: This research provides unique insight on the effects the COVID-19 pandemic had on family medicine in Canada. These results provide insights on the needs and information gaps of family physicians in a public health crisis and can inform preparedness efforts by public health agencies, professional organizations, educators, and practitioners.

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)0.011
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.052
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.022
Threshold uncertainty score0.062

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0110.052
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0040.004
Science and technology studies0.0040.003
Scholarly communication0.0030.003
Open science0.0010.004
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 head0.220
GPT teacher head0.441
Teacher spread0.222 · 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 designQualitative
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

Citations2
Published2023
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBMC Primary CareSame topicCOVID-19 and Mental HealthFrench-language works237,207