Care-seeking experiences of unattached patients in the Canadian health care system
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To understand how lack of attachment to a regular primary care provider influences patients' outlooks on primary care, ability to address their health care needs, and confidence in the health care system. DESIGN: Qualitative descriptive study using semistructured interviews. SETTING: Canadian provinces of Nova Scotia, Ontario, and Quebec. PARTICIPANTS: Patients aged 18 years or older who were unattached or had become attached within 1 year of being interviewed and who resided in the province in which they were interviewed. METHODS: Forty-one semistructured interviews were conducted, during which participants were asked to describe how they had become unattached, their searches to find new primary care providers, their perceptions of and experiences with the centralized waiting list in their province, their experiences seeking care while unattached, and the impact of being unattached on their health and on their perceptions of the health care system. Interviews were transcribed and analyzed using a thematic approach. MAIN FINDINGS: Two main themes were identified in interviews with unattached or recently attached patients: unmet needs of unattached patients and the impact of being unattached. Patients' perceived benefits of attachment included access to care, longitudinal relationships with health care providers, health history familiarity, and follow-up monitoring and care coordination. Being unattached was associated with negative effects on mental health, poor health outcomes, decreased confidence in the health care system, and greater pre-existing health inequities. CONCLUSION: Having a regular primary care provider is essential to having access to high-quality care and other health care services. Attachment also promotes health equity and confidence in the public health care system and has broader system-level, social, and policy implications.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".