MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2237527621 · doi:10.1186/s12939-016-0298-8

What is the scope of improving immigrant and ethnic minority healthcare using community navigators: A systematic scoping review

2016· article· en· W2237527621 on OpenAlexaffabout
Nusrat Shommu, Salim Ahmed, Nahid Rumana, Gary Barron, Kerry McBrien, Tanvir Chowdhury Turin

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal for Equity in Health · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicMigration, Health and Trauma
Canadian institutionsFoothills Medical CentreUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEthnic groupSocial policyHealth services researchHealthcare policyScope (computer science)ImmigrationHealth carePublic healthHealth policyHealth administrationMedicineNursingPolitical scienceHealth care reformPublic relationsLawComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

INTRODUCTION: Immigrants are among the most vulnerable population groups in North America; they face multidimensional hurdles to obtain proper healthcare. Such barriers result in increased risk of developing acute and chronic conditions. Subsequently a great deal of burden is placed on the healthcare system. Community navigator programs are designed to provide culturally sensitive guidance to vulnerable populations in order to overcome barriers to accessing healthcare. Navigators are healthcare workers who support patients to obtain appropriate healthcare. This scoping review systematically searches and summarizes the literature on community navigators to help immigrant and ethnic minority groups in Canada and the United States overcome barriers to healthcare. METHODS: We systematically searched electronic databases for primary articles and grey literature. Study selection was performed following the preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses (PRISMA) statement. Articles were selected based on four criteria: (1) the study population was comprised of immigrants or ethnic minorities living in Canada or the United States; (2) study outcomes were related to chronic disease management or primary care access; (3) the study reported effects of community navigator intervention; (4) the study was published in English. Relevant information from the articles was extracted and reported in the review. RESULT: Only one study was found in the literature that focused on navigators for immigrants in Canada. In contrast, 29 articles were found that reported navigator intervention programs for immigrant minorities in the United States. In these studies navigators trained and guided members of several ethnic communities for chronic disease prevention and management, to undertake cancer screening as well as accessing primary healthcare. The studies reported substantial improvement in the immigrant and ethnic minority health outcomes in the United States. The single Canadian study also reported positive outcome of navigators among immigrant women. CONCLUSION: Navigator interventions have not been fully explored in Canada, where as, there have been many studies in the United States and these demonstrated significant improvements in immigrant health outcomes. With many immigrants arriving in Canada each year, community navigators may provide a solution to reduce the existing healthcare barriers and support better health outcomes for new comers.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.009
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.460
Threshold uncertainty score0.995

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0090.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.233
GPT teacher head0.537
Teacher spread0.304 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations123
Published2016
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal for Equity in HealthSame topicMigration, Health and TraumaFrench-language works237,207