Characteristics of family physicians with additional training or focused practices in caring for older adults
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To identify FPs with additional training and focused practice activities relevant to the needs of older patients within health administrative data and to describe their medical practices and service provision in community-based primary care settings. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. SETTING: Ontario. PARTICIPANTS: Family physicians with Certificates of Added Competence in care of the elderly from the College of Family Physicians of Canada or focused practice billing designations in care of the elderly. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Evidence of additional training or certification in care of the elderly or practice activities relevant to the care of older adults. RESULTS: Of 14,123 FPs, 242 had evidence of additional scope to better support older adults. These FPs mainly practised in team-based care models, tended to provide comprehensive care, and billed for core primary care services. In an unadjusted analysis, factors statistically significantly associated with greater likelihood of having additional training or focused practices relevant to the care of older patients included physician demographic characteristics (eg, female sex, having completed medical school in Canada, residential instability at the community level), primary care practice model (ie, focused practice type), primary care activities (eg, more likely to provide consultations, practise in long-term care, refer patients to psychiatry and geriatrics, bill for complex house call assessments, bill for home care applications, and bill for long-term care health report forms), and patient characteristics (ie, older average age of patients). CONCLUSION: The FP workforce with additional training or focused practices in caring for older patients represents a small but specialized group of providers who contribute a portion of the total primary care activities for older adults. Health human resource planning should consider the contributions of all FPs who care for older adults, and enhancing geriatric competence across the family medicine workforce should be emphasized.
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 | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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) | 0.003 | 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".