MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2990939585 · doi:10.22605/rrh5313

Precarious patients: health professionals’ perspectives on providing care to Mexican and Jamaican migrants in Canada’s Seasonal Agricultural Worker Program

2019· article· en· W2990939585 on OpenAlexaffabout
Donald C. Cole, Janet McLaughlin, Jenna Hennebry, Michelle Tew

Bibliographic record

VenueRural and Remote Health · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicGlobal Health Workforce Issues
Canadian institutionsWilfrid Laurier UniversityInstitute for Work & HealthCanada Auto WorkersBalsillie School of International AffairsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHealth careContext (archaeology)NursingQualitative researchConfidentialityMedicineWork (physics)Medical educationSociologyPolitical scienceGeographyEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

INTRODUCTION: The intersecting vulnerabilities of migrant agricultural workers (MAWs) impact both their health and their access to health care in rural areas, yet rural clinicians' voices are rarely documented. The purpose of this study was to explore health professionals' perspectives on health care for MAWs in sending countries and rural Ontario, Canada. METHODS: Qualitative research design occurred over three distinct projects, using a multi-methodological approach including semi-structured interviews in Mexico, Jamaica and rural Ontario (n=43), and session field notes and questionnaires administered to healthcare providers (n=65) during knowledge exchange sessions in rural Ontario. A systematic analysis of these data was done to identify common themes, using NVivo software initially and then Microsoft Excel for application of a framework approach. RESULTS: Structural challenges posed by migrant workers' context included difficulties preventing and managing work-related conditions, employers or supervisors compromising confidentiality, and MAWs' fears of loss of employment and return to countries of origin prior to completing treatments. Structural challenges related to health services included lack of adequate translation/interpretation services and information about insurance coverage and MAWs' work and living situations; scheduling conflicts between clinic hours and MAWs' availability; and difficulties in arranging follow-up tests, treatments and examinations. Intercultural challenges included language/communication barriers; cultural barriers /perceptions; and limited professional knowledge of MAWs' migration and work contexts and MAWs' knowledge of the healthcare system. Transnational challenges arose around continuity of care, MAWs leaving Canada during/prior to receiving care, and dealing with health problems acquired in Canada. A range of responses were suggested, some in place and others requiring additional organization, testing and funding. CONCLUSION: Funding to strengthen responses to structural and intercultural challenges, including research assessing improved supports to rural health professionals serving MAWs, are needed in rural Canada and rural Mexico and Jamaica, in order to better address the structural and intersecting vulnerabilities and the care needs of this specific population.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.170
Threshold uncertainty score0.343

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0190.005
Scholarly communication0.0030.001
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0010.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.011
GPT teacher head0.350
Teacher spread0.340 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations25
Published2019
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRural and Remote HealthSame topicGlobal Health Workforce IssuesFrench-language works237,207