MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4401727977 · doi:10.1186/s12909-024-05882-5

Advice to future family physicians: findings from qualitative interviews with family medicine residents and early-career family physicians

2024· article· en· W4401727977 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Sean Wang, Richard Buote, Lauren Moritz, M. Ruth Lavergne, Emily Gard Marshall

Bibliographic record

VenueBMC Medical Education · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicPrimary Care and Health Outcomes
Canadian institutionsDalhousie University
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsCLARITYPrimary careFamily medicineMedicineAdvice (programming)Qualitative researchMEDLINEMedical educationNursingSociology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Canadians continue to report challenges accessing primary care. Practice choices made by primary care providers shape services available to Canadians. Although there is literature observing family medicine practice trends, there is less clarity on the reasoning underlying primary care providers' practice intentions. Advice offered by residents and early-career family physicians may reveal challenges they have experienced, how they have adapted to them, and strategies for new residents. In this paper, we examine advice family medicine residents and early-career family physicians would give to new family medicine residents. METHODS: Sixty early-career family physicians and thirty residents were interviewed as part of a mixed-methods study of practice patterns of family medicine providers in Canada. During qualitative interviews, participants were asked, "what advice would you give [a new family medicine resident] about planning their career as a family physician?" We inductively analyzed responses to this question. RESULTS: Advice consisted of understanding the current climate of family medicine (need for specialization, business management burden, physician burnout) and revealed reasons behind said challenges (lack of support for comprehensive clinic care, practical limitations of different practice models, and how payment models influence work-life balance). Subtheme analyses showed early-career family physicians being more vocal on understanding practical aspects of the field including practice logistics and achieving job security. CONCLUSION: Most advice mirrored current changes and challenges as well as revealing strategies on how primary care providers are handling the realities of practicing family medicine. Multi-modal systemic interventions may be needed to support family physicians throughout the changing reality of family medicine and ensure family medicine is an appealing specialty.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.019
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.042
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.059
Threshold uncertainty score0.118

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0190.042
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0140.012
Scholarly communication0.0040.004
Open science0.0020.006
Research integrity0.0030.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.081
GPT teacher head0.472
Teacher spread0.391 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2024
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBMC Medical EducationSame topicPrimary Care and Health OutcomesFrench-language works237,207