MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4404808683 · doi:10.1370/afm.22.s1.6417

The Good, the Bad and the Necessity of Locum Tenens

2024· article· en· W4404808683 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Cathy Thorpe, Amanda Terry, Kamila Premji, Sharon Bal, Maria Mathews, Judith K. Brown, Bridget Ryan

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Annals of Family Medicine · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicGlobal Health Workforce Issues
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBusiness

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Context: Recent Family Physician graduates practicing as locum tenens has been sometimes presented as a double-edged sword in addressing the Family Medicine workforce crisis. While the concept of locums dates back to the 1970s, examination of the advantages and disadvantages that drive the decision to do locums is needed in the current context. Objective: To explore the factors influencing early career family physicians’ (FPs) decision to do locums. Study Design and Analysis: Constructivist Grounded Theory (CGT) study using in-depth interviews via Zoom. Analysis conducted according to CGT methodology. Setting: FP practices in Ontario, Canada. Population Studied: 38 FPs practicing in Ontario, who completed their training between 2017 to 2022. Results: 9 participants were currently working as a locum, 14 participants had done locums prior to establishing a practice, and 15 had chosen not to locum but go directly into practice, often taking on an available practice. Participants were pulled towards doing locums because they offered opportunities to experience different practice styles and locations, allowed scheduling flexibility, and were viewed as a potential way to enhance work-life balance. Other prominent attractions included the numerous locums available, as well as the opportunity to provide needed coverage for their physician colleagues (e.g. parental leave). Factors pushing participants away from deciding to locum were the inability to provide continuity of care for patients and limited autonomy in altering established clinic protocols. The financial instability of doing locums was also seen as a disadvantage but was lessened by the availability of locums, with long-term locums being most attractive. However, some participants expressed that moving constantly from locum to locum was challenging, first, in identifying a new locum opportunity, and second, in learning about that clinic and the patients for whom they were responsible. Conclusions: Study findings suggest that several push and pull factors influence the decision to do locums following graduation. Reasons for locums showed similarities to previous research but findings illuminate the current status of locum tenens in the context of increasing family physician shortages in Ontario, Canada.

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)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.020
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.100
Threshold uncertainty score0.199

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.020
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0090.016
Scholarly communication0.0050.004
Open science0.0010.005
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.000

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 head0.257
GPT teacher head0.533
Teacher spread0.276 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreCommentary

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 routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Annals of Family MedicineSame topicGlobal Health Workforce IssuesFrench-language works237,207