Access to health and support services: perspectives of people living with a long-term traumatic spinal cord injury in rural and urban areas
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To examine the perspectives of persons living with traumatic spinal cord injuries (tSCI) on their access to health and support services. The specific aims were to identify the perceived gaps in access, classify the nature of the perceived gaps and compare differences in perceptions of access between urban and rural participants. METHOD: Using a descriptive, qualitative approach, semi-structured interviews were conducted with 23 adults living with tSCI, 13 of whom had paraplegia. Ten participants resided in rural areas and 16 were male. Thematic analysis allowed for the identification of patterns, which were then categorized according to the dimensions of access. RESULTS: Opportunities to engage in health-promoting activities through a broad range of health and support services were at times limited, particularly by issues of affordability. In addition to core healthcare services, participants reported the need for complementary therapies, sports and leisure, peer support, equipment and mobility related services. Availability and accessibility of services was limited in some cases for rural participants, although rural residence conferred other valued benefits. Narratives of "not being heard" by providers were common. CONCLUSIONS: Maintaining health and well-being in people with tSCI demands access to both conventional health care and support services. Implications for Rehabilitation Access to both health and support services are important to maintaining the health and wellness of people with spinal cord injury. People with spinal cord injuries take an active role in coordinating their health, at times assuming various roles to compensate for perceived shortcomings of health care providers. Negotiating balances of power with gatekeepers in the health and insurance sectors was a key function of the coordinating role assumed by people with spinal cord injury. In order to effectively address the needs of this population, a coordinated interdisciplinary out-reach service, which includes peer support, must cross boundaries to engage sectors beyond traditional health care services, such as insurers and wellness providers.
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".