Dismantling Sociocultural Barriers to Eye Care with Tele-Ophthalmology: Lessons from an Alberta Cree Community
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: There are significant disparities in access to health care amongst Aboriginal Canadians. The purpose of this study was to determine whether tele-ophthalmology services, provided to Aboriginal Canadians in a culturally-sensitive community-based clinic, could overcome social and cultural barriers in ways that would be difficult in the traditional hospital-based setting. METHODS: The Aboriginal Diabetes Wellness Program of Alberta incorporates culturally-sensitive health-related activities and rituals as a component of a diabetic retinopathy tele-ophthalmology screening program. Metrics of program attendance were collected while stakeholders participated in a survey to identify barriers to healthcare delivery. RESULTS: Aboriginal patients, cultural liaison, nurses and program administrators revealed economic, geographic, social and cultural barriers to healthcare faced by Aboriginal people. It was found that the introduction of culturally-sensitive programs led to increased appointment attendance; from 25% to 85%. Involvement of Aboriginal nurses, inclusion of culturally-sensitive activities and participation in spiritual ceremonies led to qualitative accounts of increased patient satisfaction, trust towards the healthcare team and communication amongst participants. CONCLUSIONS: A culturally-sensitive model of healthcare delivery in a community-based health clinic improved access to tele-ophthalmology services. This was demonstrated by increased attendance at appointments and increased satisfaction amongst patients.
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 | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.015 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 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".