Access to Primary Health Care by New and Established Immigrants in Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Aim: To investigate barriers related to access to primary health care by new andestablished immigrants in a western Canadian province. Background: The immigrant population continues to rise in Canada; butimpediments to the access of immigrants to primary health care may be threateningtheir health and well-being. Methods: In total, 12 new and established immigrants participated in our focusedethnographic study. Data obtained from semi-structured interviews was analysed usingthe framework of Roper and Shapira assisted by the use of ATLAS.ti the qualitativeanalysis software package. Findings: We identified four main factors that create barriers to access ofprimary health care services: (1) information barriers that impede navigation of thehealth care system by immigrants; (2) communication barriers arising from languagedifficulties and cultural differences; (3) socioeconomic barriers that make medicalexpenses unaffordable and the provision of services inequitable; and (4) negativeprior experiences that discourage further use of services. We reveal that Canadianprimary health care, although universally available, does not necessarily provideequitable care to new and established immigrants because they face considerablebarriers in accessing and navigating these 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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".