Interim Federal Health Program: Survey of access and utilization by paediatric health care providers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: The Interim Federal Health Program (IFHP) provides health care coverage to refugees and refugee claimants, yet remains underused by providers. The objective of this study was to assess Canadian paediatricians' current understanding and utilization of the IFHP, and perceived barriers to utilization. Methods: A one-time survey was administered via the Canadian Paediatric Surveillance Program in February 2020. In addition to descriptive statistics, multinomial logistic regressions were built to examine paediatrician use of the IFHP, and characteristics associated with registration and use. Results: Of the 2,753 physicians surveyed, there were 1,006 respondents (general paediatricians and subspecialists). 52.2% of respondents had provided care to IFHP-eligible patients in the previous 6 months. Of those participants, only 26.4% were registered IFHP providers, and just 16% could identify 80% or more of IFHP-covered services. Knowledge of 80% or more of IFHP-covered services was associated with registration status (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 1.92; 95%CI 1.09 to 3.37). Among those who knew they were not registered, 70.2% indicated they did not know they had to register. aOR demonstrated that those with fewer years of practice had higher odds of not knowing that they had to register (aOR 1.22; 95%CI 1.01 to 1.49). Conclusions: We demonstrate that IFHP is poorly utilized by paediatric providers, with low registration rates and poor understanding of IFHP-covered supplemental services, even among those who have recently provided care to IFHP-eligible patients. Efforts to improve registration and knowledge of IFHP are essential to improving access to health care for refugee children and youth.
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".