The gap between coverage and care—what can Canadian paediatricians do about access to health services for refugee claimant children?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: In June 2012, the government of Canada severely restricted the scope of the Interim Federal Health Program that had hitherto provided coverage for the health care needs of refugee claimants. The Quebec government decided to supplement coverage via the provincial health program. Despite this, we hypothesized that refugee claimant children in Montreal would continue to experience significant difficulties in accessing basic health care. OBJECTIVES: (1) Report the narrative experiences of refugee claimant families who were denied health care services in Montreal following June 2012, (2) describe the predominant barriers to accessing health care services and understanding their impact using thematic analysis and (3) derive concrete recommendations for child health care providers to improve access to care for refugee claimant children. METHODS: Eleven parents recruited from two sites in Montreal participated in semi-structured interviews designed to elicit a narrative account of their experiences seeking health care. Interviews were recorded, transcribed, coded using NVivo software and subjected to thematic analysis. RESULTS: Thematic analysis of the data revealed five themes concerning barriers to health care access: lack of continuous health coverage, health care administrators/providers' lack of understanding of Interim Federal Health Program coverage, refusal of services or fees charged, refugee claimants' lack of understanding about health care rights and services and language barriers, and four themes concerning the impact of denial of care episodes: potential for adverse health outcomes, psychological distress, financial burden and social stigma. CONCLUSION: We propose eight action points for advocacy by Canadian paediatricians to improve access to health care for refugee claimant children in their communities and institutions.
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 | 0.012 | 0.047 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.016 | 0.015 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".