The healthcare experiences of rural-living Canadians with and without a primary care provider: a qualitative analysis of open-ended cross-sectional survey responses
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIM: This study aimed to explore healthcare experiences of rural-living patients both with (attached) and without (unattached) a local primary care provider. BACKGROUND: Primary care providers serve a gatekeeping role in the Canadian healthcare system as the first contact for receiving many health services. With the shortage of primary care providers, especially in rural areas, there is a need to explore attached and unattached patient experiences when accessing healthcare. METHODS: A cross-sectional survey of rural patients both with (attached) and without (unattached) a primary care provider was conducted July-September 2022. An open-ended question gathered participants' thoughts and experiences with provider shortages. FINDINGS: Overall, 523 (Mean age = 51 years, 75% female) rural British Columbia community members (306 attached; 217 unattached) completed the survey. Despite similar overall health, unattached patients received care less frequently overall compared to attached patients, including less frequent non-urgent and preventive care. The vast majority of attached patients sought care from a regular provider whereas unattached patients were more likely to use walk-in, emergency department, and urgent care and 29% did not seek care at all. Overall, 460 (88.0%) provided a response to the open-ended doctor shortage question. Similar themes were found among both attached and unattached participants and included: i) the ubiquity of the doctor shortage, ii) the precariousness or fluidity of attachment status, and iii) solutions and recommendations. Greater attention is needed on the negative and cyclical impacts provider shortages have for both attached and unattached patients alike.
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 | 0.004 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".