Family physicians who provide comprehensive care to a group of patients over the long term: A study of key factors
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Context Family physicians (FP) provide care in many settings, including primary care clinics, hospitals, and elsewhere. Despite its health benefit, a growing number of Canadians are without a regular source of care. This portends a need to study influences on FP decisions to provide comprehensive care to a group of patients over the long term. Objective To evaluate broad factors that are associated with FP practice as comprehensive primary care providers. Study Design and Analysis Descriptive study using linked data from self-response surveys and from secondary administrative data to examine factors that are associated with FP comprehensive primary care practice. One-way crosstabulations and chi-square statistics were used to identify significant factors (p<0.05). Logistic regression was used to evaluate the relative weights of associated factors. Dataset The College of Family Physicians of Canada (CFPC) membership database and Family Medicine Longitudinal Survey (FMLS). Population Studied Family physicians who completed family medicine training in Canada in 2018-2019, and responded to the FMLS survey three years into fully licensed practice (2021-2022). Intervention/Instrument FMLS self-response, online questionnaires and administrative data created through CFPC membership. Outcome Measure FP providing comprehensive care to a group of patients over long term (Yes/No) Results Three years into fully licensed practice, 82% of FPs said they “provide comprehensive care to a current group of patients over the long term”. Those who were “proud to be an FP” at the end of residency training were more likely to provide this type of care than those who were not (84% vs 69%). FPs who do office-based clinical procedures were more likely to provide comprehensive care over the long term (90%), as were those in patient’s medical home (PMH) practices (92%). FPs who do in-hospital clinical procedures are less likely to provide comprehensive care to a group of patients (72%) as are those with certificates of added competence in emergency medicine (36%). Conclusions Several factors influence FPs likelihood of caring for a group of patients over the long term. Professional identity at the end of residency training is an important signal, as are enabling practice conditions, like the PMH model. A key finding is that while FPs contribute significantly to hospital-based care, it can impede the delivery of comprehensive, ongoing primary care to a specific patient group.
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 | 0.003 | 0.017 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".