Perceptions of primary healthcare services among people with physical disabilities - part 1: access issues.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Access to primary healthcare among people with physical disabilities has been a neglected research area in Canada. The authors sought to examine the extent of access to and satisfaction with primary healthcare services for people with physical disabilities living in Canada's largest metropolitan area -- the Toronto region. METHODS: An anonymous self-report questionnaire regarding access to and perceived quality of primary healthcare was mailed to a convenience sample of 1026 members of several disability organizations as well as persons discharged from a rehabilitation hospital within the past 2 years. For the 201 returned surveys (response rate = 20%), the authors evaluated the perceived extent of access to primary healthcare services as well as the level of satisfaction with the quality of these services. RESULTS: Among the respondents to the questionnaire, 17.4% reported having difficulty obtaining a family doctor's services and 8.0% reported having been refused medical treatment by a family doctor because of their disability. Respondents also reported difficulty in physically accessing their family doctor's office (32.3%), equipment (38.3%), and washroom (22.9%). Although 82.1% of respondents claimed they were very or somewhat satisfied with their family doctor's services, 19.4% felt they were receiving inadequate primary healthcare and 21.9% felt that their disability prevented them from receiving appropriate primary healthcare. DISCUSSION: Although people who experienced more difficulties may have been more likely to respond to this survey, a significant proportion of people with physical disabilities feel they are experiencing difficulty accessing adequate and appropriate primary healthcare services. Possible solutions to some of the identified access barriers and areas where further research may be required are described.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".