Assessing Primary Care Physiciansâ Attitudes Towards Adoption of an Electronic Tool to Support Cancer Diagnosis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The objective of this study was to assess Primary Care Physiciansâ attitudes towards adoption of the Diagnostic Assessment Program-Electronic Pathway Solution (DAP-EPS), an electronic tool for improving cancer diagnostic processes. The implementation of DAP-EPS is a provincial activity supported by Cancer Care Ontario in collaboration with the Canadian Cancer Society. \nWe conducted an online survey of Ontario PCPs. To guide our study, we used an integrated theoretical framework combining the Technology Acceptance Model and Diffusion of Innovation. \nStudy results suggested a strong influence of perceived usefulness of the DAP-EPS tool on physiciansâ attitudes towards adoption of the tool. The results also found that perceived usefulness was more important than perceived ease-of-use within the PCP context. \nThe study revealed that perceived usefulness is the main predictor of physiciansâ attitudes. The findings also suggested that the management and implementation team should emphasize the usefulness of the DAP-EPS to increase adoption among PCPs.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 teacher head, 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".