What Changes Would Manitoba First Nations Like to See in the Primary Healthcare They Receive? A Qualitative Investigation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: First Nations (FN) have unique perspectives and experiences of health and healthcare services, which are critical to the provision of effective community-based primary healthcare (CBPHC). OBJECTIVE: This paper shares FN perspectives on primary healthcare (PHC), taking geographical, cultural and historical realities into account, to elucidate opportunities to improve current healthcare services. METHODS: Semi-structured in-depth qualitative interviews were completed with 183 residents of 8 Manitoba FN communities. Grounded theory-guided data analysis was conducted. RESULTS: Improving PHC performance requires delivering timely and holistic healthcare that integrates traditional health knowledge, comprehensive CBPHC increasing services such as healthcare and medical transportation, healthy food as an important preventative measure and a culturally informed workforce backed by local leadership and promoting cultural respect. CONCLUSION: The relationship between self-determination and health is a critical factor in the implementation of CBPHC. FN must be respected to decide healthcare priorities that reflect the needs and visions of each community.
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 | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".