MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4411471750 · doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2025-103894

Informing family physician payment reform in Canada: protocol for a cross-provincial, multimethod study

2025· article· en· W4411471750 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Lindsay Hedden, Agnes Grudniewicz, Alan Katz, M. Ruth Lavergne, Ted McDonald, David Rudoler, Nichole Austin, Gayle Halas, Sarah Spencer, Rachel Thelen, Maria Mathews, Rita McCracken, Kimberlyn McGrail, Hugh Shiplett, Erin Strumpf

Bibliographic record

VenueBMJ Open · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicPrimary Care and Health Outcomes
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British ColumbiaWestern UniversityMcGill UniversityOntario Tech UniversitySimon Fraser UniversityUniversity of ManitobaUniversity of New BrunswickDalhousie UniversityManitoba HealthUniversity of Ottawa
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchCanada Research ChairsMichael Smith Health Research BC
KeywordsRemunerationMedicinePaymentNova scotiaFamily medicineNursingPublic relationsPolitical scienceBusinessSociology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Amid growing concerns about primary care accessibility and the need to support longitudinal, community-based models of care, Canadian provinces have implemented major reforms to how family physicians are paid. These models share objectives of making longitudinal, community-based family practice more attractive and, to some degree, addressing long-standing disparities in pay between family medicine and other specialties. These new remuneration models require robust evaluation to guide improvements, future investments and planning. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: We will conduct a multimethod study to explore physician perceptions and outcomes of these new models. First, we will complete semi-structured interviews with family physicians in British Columbia, Manitoba and Nova Scotia (provinces where a new blended compensation model has been introduced). Interviews will explore family physicians' motivations for moving onto the blended compensation model; how the model has impacted their practice, administrative burden, visit length, capacity, changes to care coordination; and other areas of interest. Second, using provincial and national administrative datasets, we will assess the impact of these payment reforms on service volume, attachment/enrolment, continuity of care, and costs. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: We have obtained cross-jurisdictional ethics approvals from Research Ethics British Columbia for the qualitative components and Nova Scotia Health for the quantitative components of this research. Harmonised ethics approvals have been obtained from additional institutions across all study regions. We will create summaries of findings of provincial and cross-provincial analyses and share them with relevant policymakers, physician associations and study participants. Our dissemination will also include traditional publications such as peer-reviewed articles, commentaries/editorials, and academic conferences.

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)0.064
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.051
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Protocol · Consensus signal: Protocol
Teacher disagreement score0.933
Threshold uncertainty score0.802

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0640.051
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.004
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.004
Bibliometrics0.0080.012
Science and technology studies0.0130.004
Scholarly communication0.0060.003
Open science0.0050.004
Research integrity0.0040.006
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0590.008

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 head0.197
GPT teacher head0.594
Teacher spread0.397 · 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 designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreProtocol

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

Citations1
Published2025
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBMJ Open→Same topicPrimary Care and Health Outcomes→French-language works237,207→