A population-centered model for public health medicine
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Public health physicians (PHPs) are trained in both medicine and public health, yet practice models in each of these fields incompletely describe their work. A model of practice for public health physicians would better enable training and professional development in the specialty. The objective of this study was to develop an empirically grounded method of the practice of public health medicine by public health physicians. STUDY DESIGN: This was designed as a constructivist grounded theory (CGT) study. Semistructured interviews with 18 public health physicians in Canada were conducted over the course of 1 year. METHODS: Transcribed interviews were coded in three stages (line-by-line, focused, and theoretical). Constant comparison, theoretical sampling, reflective and analytic memos, and team discussion on reflexivity were used to ensure rigor and the proper application of CGT methods. RESULTS: The key finding of this study is the population-centered medical method (POP-CMM), an empirically grounded method of PHP practice. In this model, PHPs bring values, knowledge, and stances to their practice of medicine with populations as patients. They work to diagnose and intervene on public health issues, with a focus on prevention and systems. Essential to this work is knowledge sharing and relationship building between physicians and populations. CONCLUSIONS: POP-CMM represents a method of practice for PHPs. Further exploration of this method in other countries and systems would bring insight into PHP practice globally. The model has important connections to the practice of medicine and presents the possibility of developing a general model of physician practice for a range of patients, from individuals to populations.
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 | 0.022 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".