“There are still a lot of things that I need”: a qualitative study exploring opportunities to improve the health services of First Nations People with arthritis seen at an on-reserve outreach rheumatology clinic
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Arthritis is a highly prevalent disease and leading cause of disability in the Indigenous population. A novel model of care consisting of a rheumatology outreach clinic in an on-reserve primary healthcare center has provided service to an Indigenous community in Southern Alberta since 2010. Despite quality assessments suggesting this model of care improves accessibility and is effective in meeting treatment targets, substantial improvements in patient-reported outcomes have not been realized. Therefore, the objective of this study was to explore the experiences of Indigenous persons with arthritis and healthcare providers involved in this model of care to inform the development of health service improvements that enhance patient outcomes. METHODS: This was a narrative-based qualitative study involving a purposeful sample of 32 individuals involved in the Indigenous rheumatology model of care. In-depth interviews were conducted to elicit experiences with the existing model of care and to encourage reflections on opportunities to improve it. A two-stage analysis was conducted. The first stage aimed to produce a narrative synthesis of concepts through a dialogical method comparing people with arthritis and health providers' narratives. The second stage involved a collective effort to synthesize concepts and propose specific recommendations to improve the quality of the current model of care. Triangulation, through participant checking and discussion among researchers, was used to increase the validity of the final recommendations. RESULTS: Ten Indigenous people with arthritis lived experience, 14 health providers and 8 administrative staff were interviewed. One main overarching theme was identified, which reflected the need to provide services that improve people's physical and mental functioning. Further, the following specific recommendations were identified: 1) enhancing patient-provider communication, 2) improving the continuity of the healthcare service, 3) increasing community awareness about the presence and negative impact of arthritis, and 4) increasing peer connections and support among people living with arthritis. CONCLUSIONS: Improving the quality of the current Indigenous rheumatology model of care requires implementing strategies that improve functioning, patient-provider communication, continuity of care, community awareness and peer support. A community-based provider who supports people while navigating health services could facilitate the implementation of these strategies.
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 | 0.016 | 0.021 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.012 | 0.012 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| 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 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".