Providing care to vulnerable populations: a qualitative study among GPs working in deprived areas in Montreal, Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Communication barriers between persons living in poverty and healthcare professionals reduce care effectiveness. Little is known about the strategies general practitioners (GPs) use to enhance the effectiveness of care for their patients living in poverty. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to identify strategies adopted by GPs to deliver appropriate care to patients living in poverty. METHODS: We conducted in-depth semi-structured interviews with 35 GPs practising in Montreal, Canada, who regularly provide care to underprivileged patients in primary care clinics located in deprived urban areas. Analysis consisted of interview debriefing, transcript coding, thematic analysis and data interpretation. RESULTS: GPs develop specific skills for caring for these patients that are responsive to their complex medical needs and challenging social context. Our respondents used three main strategies in working with their patients: building a personal connection to overcome social distance, aligning medical expectations with patients' social vulnerability and working collaboratively to empower patients. With these strategies, the physicians were able to enhance the patient-physician relationship and to take into account the impact of poverty on illness self-management. CONCLUSIONS: Our results may help GPs improve the health and care experience of their vulnerable patients by adopting these strategies. The strategies' impacts on patients' experience of care and health outcomes should be evaluated as a prelude to integrating them into primary care practice and the training of future physicians.
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 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 | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".