QUALICOPC (Quality and Costs of Primary Care) Canada : a focus on the aspects of primary care most highly rated by current patients of primary care practices
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This Pan-Canadian report describes patient and physician perspectives regarding current performance \nof primary care in each province based on data collected as part of the Quality and Costs of Primary \nCare (QUALICOPC) study. The QUALICOPC study is an international study of quality and costs \nof primary care in 34 countries. This report describes results from the data collected in Canada. It \nincludes only data collected from patients and physicians in primary care practices that provide \ncomprehensive primary care. \nTwo patient surveys were conducted as part of the study; one that asked patients about the importance \nof various aspects of primary care and the other about patients’ experiences with primary care. This \nreport focuses on aspects of primary care that respondents to patient surveys (distributed during visits \nto primary care physicians) identified as very important aspects of their primary care experience. \nPrimary care physicians from all Canadian provinces were asked to participate in the QUALICOPC \nstudy by a research team in each province. In general, one physician from each primary care \npractice was invited to participate (23 practices, primarily in Quebec, had more than one physician \nrespondent). Physicians who agreed to participate were sent a package containing four different \nsurveys regarding: the practice setting ; the services provided in the practice ; patient values and patient experience. \nIn each practice, the physician was asked to complete the survey about the services provided and \nany staff member could complete the practice setting survey. One patient was expected to respond to \nthe patient values survey and nine other patients were expected to respond to the patient experience \nsurvey. Physicians returned completed surveys to the research team in each province. \nA total of 8,332 patients of 810 primary care physicians in 785 practices across Canada responded \nto the surveys. A total of 1,160 completed the patient values survey and a different sample of \n7,172 patients completed the patient experience survey. Two-thirds (67%) of participating patients \nwere female, and three-quarters (74%) were in good to very good health . The median age of patient \nrespondents was 53. The majority (59%) of participating patients had a post-secondary education, \nwere fluent or native speaking in at least one of Canada’s official languages (80%) and were born in \nCanada (86%).To our knowledge, this is the largest study to date of patient values and patient experience regarding \nprimary care in Canada in terms of the number of patients. The results reported provide important \ninsight into the experience and values of primary care of the population sampled (as described above): \npatients who had access to a primary care physician, the majority of whom were in good to very good \nhealth. Whether the results reported herein and the associated reported policy implications would \nextend to other population groups, such those who do not have regular access to a primary care \npractice, requires further study.
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.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it