MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2394062255 · doi:10.1186/s12939-016-0367-z

Abuse and discrimination towards indigenous people in public health care facilities: experiences from rural Guatemala

2016· article· en· W2394062255 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Alejandro Cerón, Ana Lorena Ruano, Silvia Sánchez, Aiken Chew, Diego Díaz, Alison Hernández, Walter Flores

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal for Equity in Health · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicPublic Health and Social Inequalities
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchEuropean CommissionMedical Research CouncilAustralian GovernmentBusiness Events Perth
KeywordsRacismPublic healthIndigenousAccountabilityThematic analysisFocus groupHealth careHealth services researchHealth policySocial determinants of healthSociologyPolitical scienceMedicineNursingQualitative researchGender studiesSocial science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Health inequalities disproportionally affect indigenous people in Guatemala. Previous studies have noted that the disadvantageous situation of indigenous people is the result of complex and structural elements such as social exclusion, racism and discrimination. These elements need to be addressed in order to tackle the social determinants of health. This research was part of a larger participatory collaboration between Centro de Estudios para la Equidad y Gobernanza en los Servicios de Salud (CEGSS) and community based organizations aiming to implement social accountability in rural indigenous municipalities of Guatemala. Discrimination while seeking health care services in public facilities was ranked among the top three problems by communities and that should be addressed in the social accountability intervention. This study aimed to understand and categorize the episodes of discrimination as reported by indigenous communities. METHODS: A participatory approach was used, involving CEGSS's researchers and field staff and community leaders. One focus group in one rural village of 13 different municipalities was implemented. Focus groups were aimed at identifying instances of mistreatment in health care services and documenting the account of those who were affected or who witnessed them. All of the 132 obtained episodes were transcribed and scrutinized using a thematic analysis. RESULTS: Episodes described by participants ranged from indifference to violence (psychological, symbolic, and physical), including coercion, mockery, deception and racism. Different expressions of discrimination and mistreatment associated to poverty, language barriers, gender, ethnicity and social class were narrated by participants. CONCLUSIONS: Addressing mistreatment in public health settings will involve tackling the prevalent forms of discrimination, including racism. This will likely require profound, complex and sustained interventions at the programmatic and policy levels beyond the strict realm of public health services. Future studies should assess the magnitude of the occurrence of episodes of maltreatment and racism within indigenous areas and also explore the providers' perceptions about the problem.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.103
Threshold uncertainty score0.205

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0200.008
Scholarly communication0.0030.001
Open science0.0010.007
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.168
GPT teacher head0.489
Teacher spread0.321 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
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

Citations97
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal for Equity in HealthSame topicPublic Health and Social InequalitiesFrench-language works237,207