Access to Prenatal Care for Pregnant Refugee Women in Toronto, Ontario, Canada: An Audit Study
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We assessed whether eligible refugee claimants faced barriers to accessing prenatal care in the context of changes to Canadian health care policy that generated multiple categories of refugee health care eligibility. METHODS: Prenatal care providers in Toronto were contacted twice using standardized scripts to book appointments for a pregnant non-refugee and refugee claimant, both eligible for prenatal care. PRIMARY OUTCOME: unequivocal offer of appointment. Secondary outcome: reasons for refusal of prenatal care. RESULTS: There was a statistically significantly lower rate of offering prenatal care (34%) to refugee claimants compared with non-refugees (95%) (p < .001). Lack of knowledge, confusion about policies, time-consuming administrative requirements, and slow reimbursement processes were cited as reasons for refusal of care. CONCLUSIONS: Our results highlighted barriers to accessing prenatal care for refugee women. There are important future policy implications when considering the numerous changes to refugee health care policy in the last five years.
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.
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 | 0.001 | 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) | 0.000 | 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 it