Hurry up and wait. The experiences of young women in rural Nova Scotia accessing specialized care.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: This study explored experiences of waiting to access specialized health care among young women living in selected rural communities on the south shore of Nova Scotia. We asked women about the challenges they faced during wait times and how they perceived the impact of these experiences on their health. METHODS: We conducted qualitative interviews with 10 women aged 21-37 years. We used thematic analysis to identify common experiences among participants. RESULTS: Some women expressed feelings of frustration about waiting, but others resigned themselves to the wait. Women reported challenges such as caregiving for ailing family members who waited for care. Some women took control of their situation by accessing private health care or what they called "the next best thing" (e.g., care from alternative health providers), although in some cases this was financially costly. A few women sought assistance through support networks. Many women reported that wait times affected their health. CONCLUSION: Our results support previous research indicating that young rural women's caregiving roles and support networks influence their experiences with wait times. Our research indicates that waiting to access specialized care can be financially costly for some women and may also affect their health.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".