Universal Coverage without Universal Access: Institutional Barriers to Health Care among Women Sex Workers in Vancouver, Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Access to health care is a crucial determinant of health. Yet, even within settings that purport to provide universal health coverage (UHC), sex workers' experiences reveal systematic, institutionally ingrained barriers to appropriate quality health care. The aim of this study was to assess prevalence and correlates of institutional barriers to care among sex workers in a setting with UHC. METHODS: Data was drawn from an ongoing community-based, prospective cohort of women sex workers in Vancouver, Canada (An Evaluation of Sex Workers' Health Access). Multivariable logistic regression analyses, using generalized estimating equations (GEE), were employed to longitudinally investigate correlates of institutional barriers to care over a 44-month follow-up period (January 2010-August 2013). RESULTS: In total, 723 sex workers were included, contributing to 2506 observations. Over the study period, 509 (70.4%) women reported one or more institutional barriers to care. The most commonly reported institutional barriers to care were long wait times (54.6%), limited hours of operation (36.5%), and perceived disrespect by health care providers (26.1%). In multivariable GEE analyses, recent partner- (adjusted odds ratio [AOR] = 1.46, % 95% Confidence Interval [CI] 1.10-1.94), workplace- (AOR = 1.31, 95% CI 1.05-1.63), and community-level violence (AOR = 1.41, 95% CI 1.04-1.92), as well as other markers of vulnerability, such as self-identification as a gender/sexual minority (AOR = 1.32, 95% CI 1.03-1.69), a mental illness diagnosis (AOR = 1.66, 95% CI 1.34-2.06), and lack of provincial health insurance card (AOR = 3.47, 95% CI 1.59-7.57) emerged as independent correlates of institutional barriers to health services. DISCUSSION: Despite Canada's UHC, women sex workers in Vancouver face high prevalence of institutional barriers to care, with highest burden among most marginalized women. These findings underscore the need to explore new models of care, alongside broader policy changes to fulfill sex workers' health and human rights.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".