Indigenous access barriers to health care services in London, Ontario
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: Indigenous peoples in Canada suffer higher rates of health inequalities and encounter a number of health services access barriers when compared to their non-Indigenous counterparts. Indigenous peoples experience social and economic challenges, cultural barriers, and discrimination when accessing mainstream health services. Methods: In London, Ontario, 21 interviews and 2 focus groups (n = 25) with service providers were completed, each session spanning approximately 1 to 1.5 hours. Interviews were voice recorded and transcribed verbatim. Themes were identified using NVIVO 10 software. Findings: Approximately 2 to 5% of clients are Indigenous in hospital-based services. There are a number of social factors that influence whether Indigenous peoples access health services. Indigenous peoples do not have access to adequate pain medications because physicians are reluctant to provide Indigenous patients with pain medications due to common perceptions of addiction. Indigenous peoples also have barriers accessing a family physician because physicians are reluctant to take on new patients with complex health needs. Conclusion: Systemic discrimination is still alive in the health care system; therefore, there is a need for cultural safety training among physicians to increase awareness of access barriersand challenges that many Indigenous patients face when seeking health care.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| 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 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".