Opportunities for improving patient experiences among medical travellers from Canada’s far north: a mixed-methods study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: This paper explores patient experiences and identifies barriers and opportunities for improving access to healthcare for patients from the Canadian north who travel to receive medical care in a Southern province. DESIGN: A mixed-methods, cross-sectional study involved one-on-one interviews, focus group discussions and key informant interviews. PARTICIPANTS: 52 one-on-one interviews with Northwest Territories (NWT) patients and patient escorts and two focus group discussions (n=10). Fourteen key informant interviews were conducted with health workers, programme managers and staff of community organisations providing services for out-of-province patients. A Community Advisory Board guided the development of the questionnaires and interpretation of results. RESULTS: Respondents were satisfied with the care received overall, but described unnecessary burdens and bureaucratic challenges throughout the travel process. Themes relating to access to healthcare included: plans and logistics for travel; level of communication between services; clarity around jurisdiction and responsibility for care; indirect costs of travel and direct costs of uninsured services; and having a patient escort or advocate available to assist with appointments and navigate the system. Three themes related to healthcare experiences included: cultural awareness, respect and caring, and medical translation. Respondents provided suggestions to improve access to care. CONCLUSIONS: Patients from NWT need more information and support before and during travel. Ensuring that medical travellers and escorts are prepared before departing, that healthcare providers engage in culturally appropriate communication and connecting travellers to support services on arrival have the potential to improve medical travel experiences.
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".