Barriers and recruitment strategies for precarious status migrants in Montreal, Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Precarious status migrants are a group of persons who are vulnerable, heterogeneous, and often suspicious of research teams. They are underrepresented in population-based research projects, and strategies to recruit them are described exclusively in terms of a single cultural group. We analyzed the recruitment strategies implemented during a research project aimed at understanding precarious status migrants' health status and healthcare access in Montreal, Canada. The research sample consisted of 854 persons recruited from a variety of ethnocultural communities between June 2016 and September 2017. This article analyzes the strategies implemented by the research team to respond to the challenges of that recruitment, and assess the effectiveness of those strategies. Based on the results, we share the lessons learned with a view to increasing precarious status migrants' representation in research. METHOD: A mixed sequential design was used to combine qualitative data gathered from members of the research team at a reflexive workshop (n = 16) and in individual interviews (n = 15) with qualitative and quantitative data collected using the conceptual mapping method (n = 10). RESULTS: The research team encountered challenges in implementing the strategies, related to the identification of the target population, the establishment of community partnerships, and suspicion on the part of the individuals approached. The combination of a venue-based sampling method, a communications strategy, and the snowball sampling method was key to the recruitment. Linking people with resources that could help them was useful in obtaining their effective and non-instrumental participation in the study. Creating a diverse and multicultural team helped build trust with participants. However, the strategy of matching the ethnocultural identity of the interviewer with that of the respondent was not systematically effective. CONCLUSION: The interviewers' experience and their understanding of the issue are important factors to take into consideration in future research. More over, the development of a community resource guide tailored to the needs of participants should be major components of any research project targeting migrants. Finally, strategies should be implemented as the result of a continuous reflexive process among all members of the research team.
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 | 0.013 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".