Long-term trends in the work hours of physicians in Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Physician work hours directly influence patient access to health care services and play a vital role in physician human resource planning. We sought to evaluate long-term trends in hours worked by physicians in Canada, overall and by subgroup. Methods: We used Statistics Canada’s Labour Force Survey to identify physicians via occupation and industry coding information. We estimated descriptive statistics and performed graphical analysis of the average weekly hours worked by physicians over the 1987–2021 period. Results: Overall, weekly physician work hours remained stable from 1987 until 1997, after which they declined. Average weekly hours decreased by 6.9 hours (p < 0.001), from 52.8 in 1987–1991 to 45.9 in 2017–2021. Among male physicians, work hours declined notably after 1997, while those of female physicians remained relatively stable at around 45 per week. Hours worked by married physicians declined significantly, amounting to 7.4 fewer hours per week (p = 0.001). In contrast, unmarried physicians displayed a statistically insignificant decline of 2.2 hours (p = 0.3). The COVID-19 pandemic was associated with a sharp but brief disruption in weekly hours; by the end of 2020, physicians’ work hours had returned to prepandemic levels. Interpretation: These findings may indicate a long-term shift in work preferences among Canadian physicians; male physicians may be seeking a better work–life balance, which, in turn, has narrowed the gap in hours worked by sex, with potential implications for pay equity. Policymakers and planners should carefully consider changes in hours worked, rather than just the total number of physicians, to ensure an accurate evaluation of the physician workforce.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".