Health Status and Health Determinants of Older Immigrant Women in Canada: A Scoping Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Increasing international migration in the context of aging populations makes a comprehensive understanding of older immigrant women's health status and determinants of their health particularly urgent. Using Arksey and O'Malley's framework, we conducted a scoping review to examine the available literature on the health of older immigrant women in Canada. We searched CINAHL, PsycINFO, Embase, Medline, and Cochrane databases for the period of 1990 to 2014 for Canadian-based, peer-reviewed studies on the topic. A total of 20 articles met the inclusion criteria. These articles were divided into six areas of focus: physical health; mental health; abuse; health promotion and chronic disease prevention; barriers to healthcare access and utilization; and health beliefs, behaviours, and practices. Our results show that the health of older immigrant women is affected by the interplay of various social determinants of health including the physical and social environment; economic conditions; cultural beliefs; gendered norms; and the healthcare delivery system. Our results also revealed that older immigrant women tend to have more health problems, underutilize preventive services, such as cancer screening, and experience more difficulties in accessing healthcare services.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.012 | 0.019 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".