MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7033228487

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

2022· other· en· W7033228487 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueCorpus Université Laval (Université Laval) · 2022
Typeother
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicEconomic and Technological Systems Analysis
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPrimary careQuality (philosophy)Focus groupMEDLINEPrimary health carePatient careAmbulatory careGeneral practice
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.029
Threshold uncertainty score0.209

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0040.007
Science and technology studies0.0030.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.012
GPT teacher head0.183
Teacher spread0.171 · 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 designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations6
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCorpus Université Laval (Université Laval)Same topicEconomic and Technological Systems AnalysisFrench-language works237,207