Revisiting the ability of Australian primary healthcare services to respond to health inequity
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Equity of access and reducing health inequities are key objectives of comprehensive primary health care. However, the supports required to target equity are fragile and vulnerable to changes in the fiscal and political environment. Six Australian primary healthcare services, five in South Australia and one in the Northern Territory, were followed over 5 years (2009-2013) of considerable change. Fifty-five interviews were conducted with service managers, staff, regional health executives and health department representatives in 2013 to examine how the changes had affected their practice regarding equity of access and responding to health inequity. At the four state government services, seven of 10 previously identified strategies for equity of access and services' scope to facilitate access to other health services and to act on the social determinants of health inequity were now compromised or reduced in some way as a result of the changing policy environment. There was a mix of positive and negative changes at the non-government organisation. The community-controlled service increased their breadth of strategies used to address health equity. These different trajectories suggest the value of community governance, and highlight the need to monitor equity performance and advocate for the importance of health equity.
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 | 0.031 | 0.082 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| 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".