Exploring women's health care experiences through an equity lens: Findings from a community clinic serving marginalised women
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIMS AND OBJECTIVES: To explore how marginalised women perceive and rate equity-oriented health care at a primary care clinic using items that evaluate patients' experiences of care. BACKGROUND: Despite an increased recognition of the importance of health care that is equity-oriented, and that understands the patient within the context of the broader social determinants of health, inequities in health remain prevalent around the world. DESIGN: Items from the "EQUIP Primary Health Care" research programme were used to explore patients' experiences of equity-oriented health care. Women were invited to complete the questionnaire with the explicit aim of gaining their input to improve quality of care at the clinic. The Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology Statement was followed for the study. METHODS: Sixty-seven women who experienced significant health and social inequities, and were seeking care at a women's only nurse practitioner primary health care clinic in Canada, were invited to complete the questionnaire. For quality improvement purposes, correlational analyses were used to explore women's experiences of care. RESULTS: Women's responses showed that Promote Emotional Safety and Trust and Overall Quality of Care were the most highly correlated domains, indicating the importance of the health care team in establishing trusting relationships, particularly for women who experience stigma and negative judgement when seeking care. CONCLUSION: Seeking feedback from patients on their experiences of care using items developed to explicitly tap into equity issues is useful in understanding how patients experience equity-oriented health care. Responses from the women highlight the importance of understanding not only the what of equity-oriented care but also the how. RELEVANCE TO CLINICAL PRACTICE: The results of this study illustrate the importance of establishing trusting relationships, tailoring care, and using a nondiscriminatory approach when working with women who experience negative judgements when seeking 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 | 0.005 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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".