34 Using Spatial Analysis to Identify Access to IFHP-registered Paediatric Providers in Ontario
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Abstract Introduction/Background Compared to non-refugees, child refugees face a wide array of health disparities, including higher levels of nutritional deficiencies, infectious diseases, and mental illness secondary to experienced poverty, trauma, and migration. After migration, refugee families continue to face health inequities, necessitating access to health care. In Canada, the Interim Federal Health Program (IFHP) provides temporary health care benefits to refugees and refugee claimants who are ineligible for provincial or territorial health insurance. The program requires healthcare providers to register to be reimbursed for care provided. However, physicians are not required to register for IFHP, leading to fewer providers. Objectives This study aimed to map where IFHP-registered primary care physicians (PCPs) and paediatricians live and work in Ontario, relative to where IFHP-insured patients live, to identify geographic accessibility of primary healthcare services for paediatric refugee populations. Design/Methods We performed spatial analysis using ArcMap (version 10.8.2), a geographic information system (GIS). The practice location of PCPs and paediatricians registered for IFHP as of December 2021 were geocoded and the percent of IHFP provider per population for each Census Tract (CT) was calculated. Refugee populations eligible for IFHP in Ontario by CT, as identified by the 2016 Canadian Census, were calculated as percentages and per 10,000 population, and linked to geospatial data for comparison. Ratios of IFHP providers to refugees were calculated for each CT. Results At the time of data collection, there were 481,710 documented refugees living in Ontario, and 11,854 IFHP-registered paediatricians or PCPs. Toronto, Windsor, and Kitchener-Waterloo had the largest percentages of refugees per population (5.4%, 5.1%, and 4.6%, respectively), while Toronto, Hamilton, and London had the highest percentage of IFHP providers per population (0.13%, 0.11%, and 0.09%, respectively). Generally, CTs with the highest proportion of refugees had more IFHP-registered providers, and rural areas had the fewest number of both refugees and IFHP-registered providers. However, there were 941 CTs recognized across Ontario with identified refugee populations but no registered IFHP providers. The CTs with the highest ratio of IFHP providers to refugees were in Toronto and Ottawa (3.9, 2.0 in Toronto, and 2.1 in Ottawa, respectively). Conclusion While some regions with large refugee populations have registered IFHP PCP providers, there are regions that are relative IFHP provider-deserts for resident refugees. Identifying areas where geographic barriers are likely to exist in Ontario is necessary to improve accessibility of existing services and could help reduce healthcare inequities faced by the refugee population.
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 | 0,001 | 0,007 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,004 | 0,010 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,002 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,004 | 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 ».