Notice bibliographique
Résumé
There is an increasing number of international migrants worldwide and in Canada. The majority of migrants arrive with a health status higher than the average of their host country. This advantage is often lost within ten years of migration due to various reasons, most notably through the social determinants of health. These determinants are the conditions in which individuals live and work and the most relevant to migrant health include racialization, education, employment, housing, social capital, and gender. Health impact assessment (HIA) is a process with the capacity to address changes in health due to the social determinants of health by assessing the intended and unintended impacts on health that a policy, program, or project might have and recommend ways to promote positive and mitigate negative impacts. For this reason, HIA has the potential to address the observed decrease in health experienced by migrants. Various frameworks have been developed to guide the undertaking of HIA including frameworks explicitly aiming at addressing health inequities by considering particular socially disadvantaged population groups. One such example is the Health Equity Impact Assessment (HEIA) tool developed by the Ontario Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care. Although there have been a few studies addressing the inclusion of inequities in HIA in general, there has been no previous assessment of the inclusion of migrants in HIA. This doctoral thesis sought to assess the degree and way in which migrants are included in HIAs globally and across various types of HIAs and contexts. It also sought to assess the degree to which migrants were considered in local initiatives through an examination of the implementation of the Ontario HEIA tool in public health units. A scoping review of the international literature including 117 HIAs and two HIA evaluations found that only 14% of hand-searched HIAs mentioned migrants, 5% analysed migrants and only 2% included them in their recommendations. Although migrant groups were sometimes included in the process, this was seldom the case for citizens. The main reported barriers to considering migrants were a lack of available data and the significant additional resources needed. In order to undertake an evaluation throughout the province, it was first necessary to assess the way in which the Ontario HEIA had been implemented and used by public health units across the province. The scan found that nearly half of public health units had used the HEIA tool either in its original form or modified to the needs of the unit. The use of the tool was found to be influenced by the following factors: the available inputs or resources, the nature of the HIA tool, the actors and stakeholders involved, the decision-making processes within the unit or team involved, the context of the social, economic, and political environments, the nature of the project, program, or policy being assessed, and lastly, the various outputs of completing the HEIA process. Lastly, a Process and Impact evaluation assessed the way in which PHUs with a high proportion of migrants considered these migrants in their HEIAs. This study found that although migrants had been included in HEIAs, this tended to be done when the impact on migrants was anticipated. Additionally, there remains an incoherent terminology accompanied by a confounding of the concepts of migration, racialization, and ethnicity, which are reflected in the type of recommendations developed. These recommendations often focused on translation of documents into various languages and the acquiring of greater information through community partnerships. The process and capacity to include migrants in HEIAs were influenced by the availability of resources and evidence, the prioritisation of recommendations relating to migrants, and the overall impressions the staff had on the HEIA process. Nonetheless, the HEIA process was beneficial in that it strengthened relationships with migrant community organisations. This thesis work also resulted in the development of a HIA-specific theoretical framework based on the literature and empirical findings of this work. This framework is conducive to adopting a tactical approach to HIA by considering the various contextual factors influencing the completion of an HIA and implementation of its recommendations. In conclusion, although migrants are understood to be an important group often facing circumstances of disadvantage, they are only sometimes considered in HIAs. Several procedural and contextual barriers are encountered which influence their consideration. Significant guidance is still required to facilitate their adequate consideration and ensure the development of optimal recommendations. HIA frameworks should explicitly mention migrants as a potentially disadvantaged group and guidance documents could be developed to address the current gaps in understanding migrant issues.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,029 | 0,047 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,005 | 0,004 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,003 | 0,004 |
| Communication savante | 0,006 | 0,005 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,010 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,006 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».