Accessibility and acceptability of health promotion services in New Zealand for minority refugee women
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Refugees are forced to flee their native country to escape war or oppression. They are resilient and generally have a high level of motivation to rebuild their lives, as well as to make a meaningful contribution to the host country. However, refugees in general have complex health needs and they often face significant barriers in accessing health services in their host countries. Health promotion has been identified as an effective approach for increasing service utilization by minority populations such as refugees, and contributing to their overall positive health outcomes. This qualitative study examined the accessibility and acceptability of health promotion services for Bhutanese refugee women who resettled in New Zealand. The study consisted of two phases: focus group discussions with 32 Bhutanese women and eight Bhutanese men, followed by individual interviews with 12 health professionals including five nurses, four doctors and three midwives. The data were collected in two regional towns of New Zealand in 2014. The study's conceptual framework utilized the strategies and actions underpinning the Ottawa Charter for Health Promotion. Findings of this study revealed that Bhutanese women were missing some essential health promotion services, such as antenatal education sessions mainly due to language and cultural barriers. This study recommends to develop health promotion resources in the Nepali language; and to deliver the health promotion sessions by culturally and linguistically competent providers. This study also uncovered resiliency and strengths of Bhutanese women that could be recognized, strengthened and utilized in promoting their health and well-being.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".