What do we know about Canadian involvement in medical tourism?: a scoping review.
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Medical tourism, the intentional pursuit of elective medical treatments in foreign countries, is a rapidly growing global industry. Canadians are among those crossing international borders to seek out privately purchased medical care. Given Canada's universally accessible, single-payer domestic health care system, important implications emerge from Canadians' private engagement in medical tourism. METHODS: A scoping review was conducted of the popular, academic, and business literature to synthesize what is currently known about Canadian involvement in medical tourism. Of the 348 sources that were reviewed either partly or in full, 113 were ultimately included in the review. RESULTS: The review demonstrates that there is an extreme paucity of academic, empirical literature examining medical tourism in general or the Canadian context more specifically. Canadians are engaged with the medical tourism industry not just as patients but also as investors and business people. There have been a limited number of instances of Canadians having their medical tourism expenses reimbursed by the public medicare system. Wait times are by far the most heavily cited driver of Canadians' involvement in medical tourism. However, despite its treatment as fact, there is no empirical research to support or contradict this point. DISCUSSION: Although medical tourism is often discussed in the Canadian context, a paucity of data on this practice complicates our understanding of its scope and impact.
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.
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 | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 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 | 0.001 |
| 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 it