Experiences of Canadians without a primary care clinician
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Context Primary care is the bedrock of an effective healthcare system. More than one-in-five people in Canada have no access to primary care yet little is known about their experiences and preferences. Objective To characterize the healthcare-seeking behaviours and preferences for system reform of Canadians without a primary care clinician. Study Design and Analysis National bilingual online survey distributed in Fall 2022. Setting Canada. Population Studied Adults 18 years and over in Canada. Outcome Measures Sociodemographic characteristics of people without a family physician or nurse practitioner (primary care clinician), related healthcare seeking behaviours, importance of primary care attributes, and preferences towards reorganizing primary care. Results 22.0% of respondents reported not having a primary care clinician. This was significantly more likely for those who identified as: men, younger than 65, residents of British Columbia, Quebec, or Atlantic Canada, French-speakers, college- or trade school-educated, making $30,000-$69,999, or having poor or fair health. 83.1% of respondents without a primary care clinician said they were looking for one. Men and those without private health benefits were significantly less likely to be looking. Significantly more respondents without a primary care clinician, versus those with a clinician, reported visiting a walk-in clinic in the last year (71.7% vs. 41.2%) and they were significantly less likely to be satisfied (40.5% vs. 55.3%). Respondents without a primary care clinician were more open to a variety of system reforms or ways of delivering care that would expand team- and neighbourhood-based care. Conclusion Canadians without a primary care clinician differ from their attached peers by sociodemographic characteristics, walk-in clinic utilization patterns, and preferences for system reform. Their experiences should be considered when designing primary care reforms.
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 | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.019 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 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".