Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective To describe the experiences of a group of new immigrants and caregivers of new immigrants who were subject to the 3-month waiting period for the Ontario Health Insurance Plan and needed to access health care services during that time. Design Qualitative study using a phenomenologic framework. Setting Participants were recruited through the Scarborough Community Volunteer Clinic in Toronto, Ont. Interviews were conducted in person at the clinic or by telephone. Participants Seven participants were interviewed who themselves needed to access health care during the 3-month waiting period for the Ontario Health Insurance Plan or who were caring for someone who did. Methods Seven semistructured, in-depth interviews were conducted using an interview guide; these were recorded and transcribed verbatim. Data were analyzed for themes to arrive at the essence of the participants’ experiences. Main findings Participants believed that there was a lack of clear information and a lack of help from officials. Other common themes included poor social situations, financial loss or threat of financial loss related to health care, a choice to delay seeking care owing to cost, difficulty accessing alternative care, and appreciation for those who advocated on their behalf. Other themes that arose included emotional hardship, poor health outcomes or threat of poor health outcomes resulting from not seeking care, the importance and unpredictability of health, as well as negative impressions of Canada as a country as a result of the negative experience of seeking care. Conclusion New immigrants to Ontario who need to access health care services during the 3-month waiting period for provincial health insurance and the caregivers of such newcomers can have potentially very negative experiences. They might be unable to access care without financial barriers and might, therefore, choose to delay seeking health care until the end of the waiting period; this can lead to emotional hardship for themselves and their caregivers as well as to potentially poor health outcomes. This potential for an overwhelmingly negative experience for some new immigrants to Ontario might lend support to the argument that this policy be eliminated.
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.064 | 0.004 |
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".