Aboriginal women's experiences of accessing health care when state apprehension of children is being threatened
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIMS: To report findings from a study examining the impact of the threat of child removal on Aboriginal women's experiences accessing of healthcare services. BACKGROUND: A wealth of data highlights the higher proportion of Aboriginal children in government care in Canada compared with non-Aboriginal children. Aboriginal women experience poorer health outcomes than non-Aboriginal women and face significant barriers to healthcare access. However, little is known about how these phenomena may intersect. DESIGN: The study was conducted in two phases: (1) a secondary analysis of interviews with Aboriginal women and healthcare providers (n = 7) that were collected for a larger study; and (2) primary interviews with Aboriginal women (n = 9) and healthcare providers (n = 8), conducted between July-October 2011. METHODS: Postcolonial feminist perspectives and the principles of exploratory, qualitative research guided this ethnographic study. Data were analysed using principles of thematic analysis and interpretive description. FINDINGS: Aboriginal women whose children are involved with the child protection system often experience complex sociopolitical and economic challenges, which intersect with the threat of apprehension. Such threat did not impact women's decisions to seek healthcare services for their children, but experiences of racism, prejudice and discrimination in mainstream healthcare agencies and the fear of child apprehension influenced their decisions to access health care for themselves in ways that deterred access. CONCLUSION: Racism, judgment and discrimination towards Aboriginal mothers in healthcare agencies must be addressed. Educating healthcare providers about culturally safe approaches to care is critical to mitigating the ongoing impact of colonialism and its effects on health of Aboriginal people.
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 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.016 | 0.009 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".