Primary Care Provider Commitment in Canadian and International Long-Term Care Homes: A Comparative Policy Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To compare existing Canadian and international models of primary care provider (PCP) commitment in long-term care (LTC) home settings. DESIGN: A comparative policy analysis. SETTINGS AND PARTICIPANTS: LTC home policies or standards in all 13 Canadian provinces and territories and 15 Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) countries with above-average LTC spending as a share of national gross domestic product (Netherlands, Denmark, Norway, Sweden, Switzerland, France, Belgium, Finland, United Kingdom, Germany, Japan, Iceland, United States, New Zealand, and Austria). METHODS: This study employed a qualitative case study methodology and involved searching and reviewing documents in the peer-reviewed and gray literature. The focus was international policy documents, government reports, scholarly works, and other official ministerial or jurisdictional documents. Data were extracted and categorized according to the model of care, service provision, and the financing and remuneration of PCP services. RESULTS: The structured search identified 77 relevant documents for analysis. There was a paucity of evidence across all dimensions of PCP commitment for all Canadian provinces and territories. A similar lack of comprehensive information was found for all other countries included in the study, apart from the United States. CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS: There is a scarcity of information concerning models of PCP commitment in Canada and globally, potentially resulting in inconsistencies in how care is delivered, funded, and managed in LTC home settings. This underscores the necessity of consensus-building studies to establish a definition of PCP commitment to ensure the medical needs of LTC residents and their families are met through well-supported and effectively managed PCP services.
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 | 0.020 | 0.048 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.016 | 0.046 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.012 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".