Finding resiliency in the face of financial barriers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Patients with chronic diseases often face financial barriers to optimize their health. These financial barriers may be related to direct healthcare costs such as medications or self-monitoring supplies, or indirect costs such as transportation to medical appointments. No known framework exists to understand how financial barriers impact patients' lives or their health outcomes.We undertook a grounded theory study to develop such a framework. We used semistructured interviews with a purposive sample of participants with cardiovascular-related chronic disease (hypertension, diabetes, heart disease, or stroke) from Alberta, Canada. Interview transcripts were analyzed in triplicate, and interviews continued until saturation was reached.We interviewed 34 participants. We found that the confluence of 2 events contributed to the perception of having a financial barrier-onset of chronic disease and lack of income or health benefits. The impact of having a perceived financial barrier varied considerably. Protective, predisposing, or modifying of factors determined how impactful a financial barrier would be. An individual's particular set of factors is then shaped by their worldview. This combination of factors and lens determines one's degree of resiliency, which ultimately impacts how well they cope with their disease.The role of financial barriers is complex. How well an individual copes with their financial barriers is intimately tied to resiliency, which is related to the composite of a personal circumstances and their worldview. Our framework for understanding the experience of financial barriers can be used by both researchers and clinicians to better understand patient behavior.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".