Lyme Disease: Knowledge and Practices of Family Practitioners in Southern Quebec
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Public health authorities in Quebec have responded to the progressive emergence of Lyme disease (LD) with surveillance activities and education for family physicians (FPs) who are key actors in both vigilance and case management. OBJECTIVES: To describe FPs' clinical experience with LD, their degree of knowledge, and their practices in two areas, one with known infected tick populations (Montérégie) and one without (regions nearby Montérégie). METHODS: In the present descriptive cross-sectional study, FPs were recruited during educational sessions. They were asked to complete a questionnaire assessing their clinical experience with Lyme disease, their knowledge of signs and symptoms of LD, and their familiarity with accepted guidelines for diagnosing and treating LD in two clinical scenarios (tick bite and erythema migrans). RESULTS: A total of 201 FPs participated, mostly from Montérégie (n=151). Overall, results revealed a moderate lack of knowledge and suboptimal practices rather than systematically insufficient knowledge or inadequate practices. A majority of participants agreed to more education on LD. As expected, FPs from Montérégie had a higher clinical experience with tick bites (57% versus 25%), better knowledge of LD endemic areas in Canada and erythema migrans characteristics, and better management of erythema migrans (72% versus 50%). CONCLUSION: The present study documented the inappropriate intention to order serology tests for tick bites and the unjustified intention to use tick analysis for diagnostic purposes. Such practices should be discouraged because they are unnecessary and overuse collective laboratory and medical resources. In addition, public health authorities must pursue their education efforts regarding FPs to optimize case management.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".