Las barreras de acceso a los servicios de salud en la población indígena de Rabinal en Guatemala
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To identify and document access barriers to health care services for the indigenous population in Rabinal, Guatemala. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A qualitative analysis was used. Over a period of two months, 20 semi-directional interviews were conducted in Rabinal, Guatemala: 15 with Achis indigenous people and five with health professionals. A focus group was done to verify the information collected during the individual interviews. The qualitative analysis was based on the transcription of interviews and the compilation of the data. RESULTS: Barriers to access are inter-relational. Geographic barriers include distance and a significant lack of means of transportation. Economic barriers are the cost of office visits and medicine. Among the cultural barriers, the Spanish language is an obstacle. Indigenous people have other concepts of medicine and treatments and they complain on occasion of abuse by health professionals. At the same time, health professionals recognize that the trauma of the civil war is still present and criticize the poor living conditions and the lack of resources. CONCLUSIONS: Health care services in Rabinal are inadequate and insufficient for responding to the needs of the local population.
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 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".