Determinants of health-service use by low-income people.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Poverty influences health status, life expectancy, health behaviours, and use of health services. This study examined factors influencing the use of health-related services by people living in poverty. In the first phase, 199 impoverished users of health-related services in 2 large Canadian cities were interviewed by their peers. In the second phase, group interviews with people living in poverty (n = 52) were conducted. Data were analyzed using thematic content analysis. Diverse health-related services were used to meet basic and health needs, to maintain human contact, and to cope with life's challenges. Use of services depended on proximity, affordability, convenience, information, and providers' attitudes and behaviours. Use was impeded by inequities based on income status. To promote the health of people living in poverty, nurses and other health professionals can enhance the accessibility and quality of services, improve their interactions with people living in poverty, provide information about available programs, offer coordinated community-based services, collaborate with other sectors, and advocate for more equitable services and policies.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".