MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3190851257 · doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2020-047597

Qualitative evaluation of a mandatory health insurance ‘wait period’ in a publicly funded health system: understanding health inequities for newcomer im/migrant women

2021· article· en· W3190851257 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Maggie Hamel-Smith Grassby, Mei-ling Wiedmeyer, M. Ruth Lavergne, Shira M. Goldenberg

Bibliographic record

VenueBMJ Open · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicMigration, Health and Trauma
Canadian institutionsDalhousie UniversityUniversity of British ColumbiaSimon Fraser University
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchNational Institutes of HealthSimon Fraser UniversityMichael Smith Health Research BCVancouver Foundation
KeywordsMedicineQualitative researchFocus groupReproductive healthHealth careFeelingNursingFamily medicinePopulationEnvironmental healthEconomic growthPsychologySociology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate impacts of a residency-based waiting period for health insurance coverage on lived experiences of health and settlement for im/migrant women in British Columbia, Canada. DESIGN: The IRIS study is a mixed-methods, community-based, qualitative evaluation of recently arrived im/migrant women's access to sexual and reproductive care. In-depth, semistructured interviews were conducted by trained multilingual and multicultural interviewers with lived migration experience in the participant's preferred language. SETTING: Metro Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada from July 2018 to January 2020. PARTICIPANTS: Data collected from community focus groups (four groups, n=29) of both service providers and im/migrant women was used. Following this, qualitative interviews with service providers (n=10) and im/migrant women (n=47) were conducted. Eligible participants self-identified as women; were aged 18-49 and had arrived in Canada from another country. Eligible providers were employed in the health, social or legal sectors working with im/migrant women. RESULTS: The wait period resulted in mistrust and internalised stigma for racialised im/migrant women, for whom the policy resulted in feeling 'undeserving' of care. Resulting administrative burden produced delays and unmet need for care, particularly related to sexual and reproductive healthcare and children's health. Unexpected costs meant difficult choices between survival and care. Negative health outcomes included the inability to family plan, difficulties during pregnancy, as well as hardships related not being able to seek help for sick children. Community-based organisations provided support in many areas but could not fill all gaps produced by this policy. CONCLUSIONS: Findings highlight severe, yet commonly overlooked, health inequities produced by a mandatory health coverage wait period within a purportedly 'universal' healthcare system. Health system policies such as mandatory 'waiting periods' produce discriminatory and inequitable outcomes for im/migrant women. Policy reforms towards full 'healthcare for all' are urgently needed to affirm the health and human rights of all im/migrants.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.015
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.015
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.230
Threshold uncertainty score0.457

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0150.015
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0120.010
Scholarly communication0.0040.002
Open science0.0020.005
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.482
GPT teacher head0.564
Teacher spread0.082 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations24
Published2021
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBMJ OpenSame topicMigration, Health and TraumaFrench-language works237,207