Perceptions of primary care patients attending a legal health clinic: a qualitative descriptive study
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
BACKGROUND: There has been increasing recognition of the relationship between social determinants of health and unmet legal needs, with those living in poverty experiencing higher rates of poor health. Medical-legal partnerships (MLPs) are programs that have been developed to offer legal services within a clinical setting to patients who may typically not be able to access these types of services. The Legal Health Check-Up Clinic was initiated to screen and offer legal supports to patients from a Canadian primary care clinic, situated in a diverse, urban medium-sized city. Previous quantitative analyses found significant changes in overall health status as well as income, housing, and food security. The aim of this study was to evaluate participants’ experiences and satisfaction with the Legal Health Check-Up Clinic. METHODS: A qualitative descriptive approach was used and participants from the Legal Health Check-Up Clinic were invited to take part in a one-time, individual interview. Using a thematic analysis approach, each interview was independently coded and then discussed by three researchers, with any differences reconciled by consensus. Coding was iterative with new codes added as relevant ideas emerged from the interviews. RESULTS: Sixteen interviews were conducted. There were two primary themes: Personal Benefits and Challenges experienced by participants, and Program Structural Elements that fostered or impeded program success. Participants welcomed accessing legal support within the primary care environment and became more aware of their rights and options. Some learned they were not eligible for the program and felt provision of other resources would have been helpful. Participants appreciated the program philosophy of recognizing the relationship between health and social needs and offered constructive feedback for areas of improvement, such as provision of translation services and more time with clients. CONCLUSIONS: The Legal Health Check-Up Clinic was helpful for participants in providing referrals, resources, and concrete direction regarding their legal issue. Clarity in screening potential participant eligibility was suggested. Future work related to interprofessional education of legal and health professionals could support the implementation of a stronger patient-centred approach.
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 | 0,010 | 0,019 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,002 | 0,002 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,007 | 0,005 |
| Communication savante | 0,005 | 0,003 |
| Science ouverte | 0,002 | 0,004 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,002 | 0,003 |
| 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 ».