MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4403816722 · doi:10.1093/eurpub/ckae144.1829

The Population-Centered Medical Model: a method of practice for public health physicians

2024· article· en· W4403816722 on OpenAlexaffabout
Sachin Ranade, Thomas R. Freeman, Amardeep Thind, Judith Belle Brown

Bibliographic record

VenueEuropean Journal of Public Health · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicPrimary Care and Health Outcomes
Canadian institutionsCentre for Family MedicineWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPublic healthMedical practicePopulation healthFamily medicineMedicinePopulationEnvironmental healthNursing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background Public Health Physicians (PHPs) in Canada occupy a liminal space between medicine and public health. Current practice frameworks for the care of individual patients by physicians do not account for the complexity of working with communities and populations for health. Similarly, frameworks for public health practice do not account for the roles and responsibilities of physicians in public health. A method of practice that outlines how public health physicians care for populations is vital for training and development of practice for this specialty group within medicine and public health. Methods Constructivist Grounded Theory methods were used in this study. Ethics approval was obtained through The Western University Health Sciences Research Ethics Board. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with eighteen (18) currently practicing PHPs across Canada. Data was analysed iteratively using constant comparison, multi-level coding, and memo writing. Thick description and reflexivity were employed to enhance rigour. Results The key finding is the elucidation of the Population-Centered Medical Model. In this empirically grounded model, PHPs bring values, knowledge and stances to their practice of Public Health Medicine. PHPs consider the population as patient, along with ethical obligations that flow from the physician to the population as a consequence. The process of caring for populations involves both diagnosis and intervention, with a focus on systems and prevention. It relies on knowledge sharing and relationship building between the physician and the population. Conclusions This is the first empirical model to describe the practice of PHPs. The model firmly grounds PHP practice in both medicine (diagnosis and intervention, the construction of a patient) and public health (focus on populations, systems and prevention). It also presents an opportunity to develop a general model of medical practice for n patients, where n can range between 1 and N. Key messages • The Population-Centered Medical Model is an empirically grounded model that describes the work of Public Health Physicians in Canada and grounds practice firmly in medicine and in public health. • Public Health Physicians consider populations as patients. They diagnose and intervene for health, with a focus on systems and prevention, by building relationships and sharing knowledge.

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)0.095
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.071
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.095
Threshold uncertainty score0.502

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0950.071
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0060.005
Science and technology studies0.0080.027
Scholarly communication0.0100.009
Open science0.0040.009
Research integrity0.0030.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.001

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 head0.240
GPT teacher head0.521
Teacher spread0.281 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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 routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEuropean Journal of Public Health→Same topicPrimary Care and Health Outcomes→French-language works237,207→