The experiences of rural British Columbians accessing surgical and obstetrical care
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The attrition of small volume surgical and maternity services in rural Canada over the past three decades has made access to these services especially challenging for rural citizens. While many of these closures have occurred as consequences of regionalization, a strategy to regionally centralize healthcare services, many studies investigating outcomes of regionalization have focused on costs and medical endpoints rather than the direct experiences of the rural patients affected. In this study, we aimed to understand and document the experiences of rural residents accessing procedural and maternity care both locally and away from home. This study is part of a larger evaluation framework which prioritizes the insight of rural residents regarding healthcare issues. We conducted focus groups and interviews with 54 participants in six communities across British Columbia’s southeastern and northern regions. Thematic analysis showed that rural residents experienced unique challenges when leaving their communities to access care. This included logistics of travel, poor coordination of care between multiple providers, and financial and psychosocial issues. Despite being mostly content with the medical care received, participants expressed needing more attention to their unique needs and preferences as patients leaving their home communities for care. Understanding these challenges facilitates the planning of healthcare services in a more equitable manner. Our findings suggest that we need increased patient-centered healthcare planning that aims to alleviate the financial and psychosocial strain on rural residents. Experience Framework This article is associated with the Policy & Measurement lens of The Beryl Institute Experience Framework. (https://www.theberylinstitute.org/ExperienceFramework). Access other PXJ articles related to this lens. Access other resources related to this lens.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".