“Healthcare as a refuge”: building a culture of care in Montreal for refugees and asylum-seekers living with HIV
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose Between 2012 and 2016, the Government of Canada modified health insurance for refugees and asylum seekers. In Quebec, this resulted in refusals of care and uncertainties about publicly reimbursed services, despite guaranteed coverage for people with this status under the provincial plan. The Chronic Viral Illness Service (CVIS) at the McGill University Health Centre in Montreal continued to provide care to refugees and asylum seekers living with HIV. The purpose of this paper is to explain how and why challenges brought by this policy change could be overcome. Design/methodology/approach A qualitative case study was conducted using interviews with patients and staff members, observation sessions and a review of media, documents and articles. A discussion group validated the interpretation of preliminary results. Findings The CVIS provides patient-centered care through a multidisciplinary team. It collectively responds to medical, social and legal issues specific to refugees. Its organizational culture and expertise explain the sustained provision of care. The team’s empathetic view of patients, anchored in the service’s history, care for men who have sex with men and commitment to human rights, is key. A culture of care developed over time thanks to the commitment of exemplary figures. Because they countered the team’s values, changes in refugee healthcare coverage strengthened the service’s culture of care. However, the healthcare system reform launched in 2014 in Quebec is perceived as jeopardizing the culture of care, as it makes, refugee and asylum-seeker patients a non-lucrative venture for providers. Originality/value This research analyzes the origin of sustained provision of care to refugees and asylum seekers living with HIV through the lens of culture of care. It considers the historical and political contexts in which this culture developed.
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 | 0.009 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.039 | 0.035 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.013 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".