MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4387666833 · doi:10.1186/s12913-023-10057-x

Profiles of physician motivation towards using virtual care: differences in workplace need fulfillment

2023· article· en· W4387666833 on OpenAlexaffabout
Оксана Бабенко, Adam Neufeld

Bibliographic record

VenueBMC Health Services Research · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicHealthcare professionals’ stress and burnout
Canadian institutionsUniversity of CalgaryUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSelf-determination theoryAutonomyCompetence (human resources)Health informaticsPsychologyWork motivationApplied psychologyIntrinsic motivationVariance (accounting)NursingMedicineSocial psychologyWork (physics)Public health

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Physicians appear to vary in their motivation towards using virtual care, but to what extent is unclear. To better understand this variance, which is important for supporting physician wellbeing and therefore patient care, the authors used self-determination theory's (SDT) framework. According to SDT, different types of motivation exist, ranging from controlled to autonomous, that lend to differences in engagement, performance, and wellbeing. The authors aimed to determine: (a) if there were distinct groups of physicians based on their quality of motivation towards using virtual care, and if so, (b) how these groups varied in fulfillment of basic psychological needs (autonomy, competence, and relatedness) in the workplace. METHODS: In March-August 2022, the authors collected quantitative, survey-based data from a cross-section of 156 family physicians in Alberta, Canada. The survey contained existing scales that measure types of motivation (autonomous vs. controlled) and basic psychological need satisfaction/frustration at work. Cluster analysis was used to explore profiles of physician motivation towards using virtual care, and analysis of variance was used to determine how each profile differed with respect to workplace need fulfillment. RESULTS: With motivation towards using virtual care, three higher-order profiles of physician motivation were identified: autonomous (19% family physicians), controlled (16% of family physicians), and ambivalent (66% of family physicians). The three profiles differed significantly in terms of psychological need fulfillment at work. CONCLUSIONS: This study identifies specific profiles that family physicians currently fall into when it comes to motivation towards using virtual care. In line with SDT, findings suggest that basic psychological needs are fundamental nutrients for physicians to internalize and endorse the value of using virtual care in their practices. Implications for physician wellbeing are discussed.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.009
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 score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.022

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.195
GPT teacher head0.511
Teacher spread0.316 · 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

Citations1
Published2023
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBMC Health Services Research→Same topicHealthcare professionals’ stress and burnout→French-language works237,207→