Early career family physician perspectives on their residency experience and practice choices in Canada: a qualitative study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Though there are more family physicians in Canada than ever before, and residency programs are expanding, gaps in access to comprehensive care remain. This study aimed to describe and understand the role residency training experiences played in shaping practice choices, including the provision of comprehensive community-based care, among early career family physicians. Methods: A secondary analysis of sixty-three (63) qualitative interviews was conducted on data from a larger mixed method study on practice patterns and choices of early career Canadian family physicians. We utilized Braun and Clarke's six phases of reflexive thematic analysis on portions of transcripts concerning residency training experiences. Results: ". Points of tension included: i) the promotion of an idealized professional identity and practice that was difficult to uphold, ii) lack of representation among faculty/preceptors with respect to age and gender, at some sites, and iii) frustration about the lack of opportunities for interprofessional collaborative practices that reflected training experiences. Hidden truths included: i) lack of preparation to run a business, ii) high administrative workload, iii) realities of payment models, and iv) the range of roles available for family physicians beyond the provision of comprehensive care. Conclusions: Findings highlight opportunities for educational reform supporting the transition from residency to practice alongside the importance of addressing systemic factors beyond training which impact physicians' choices regarding comprehensive care.
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 | 0.007 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.019 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| 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".