MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3209770781 · doi:10.1093/pch/pxab061.090

110 Interim Federal Health Program (IFHP): Survey of Access & Utilization by Pediatric Health Care Providers

2021· article· en· W3209770781 on OpenAlexaffabout
Caroline Leps, Jessica Monteiro, Tony Barozzino, Ashna Bowry, Meb Rashid, Michael Sgro, Shazeen Suleman

Bibliographic record

VenuePaediatrics & Child Health · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicChild and Adolescent Health
Canadian institutionsWomen's College HospitalMontreal Children's HospitalUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsInterimRefugeeFamily medicineMedicineHealth careGeographyPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Primary Subject area Public Health and Preventive Medicine Background Canada is currently facing an increasing number of refugees and refugee claimants, yet Canadian health professionals are underutilizing the system intended to provide these individuals with healthcare. The Interim Federal Health Program (IFHP) provides temporary healthcare coverage for those who are ineligible for provincial or territorial insurance, including resettled refugees and asylum seekers. Research suggests there are ongoing challenges around the program such as who is covered and what services are covered. Objectives The objective of this study was to assess Canadian pediatricians’ current understanding and utilization of the IFHP, and perceived barriers to its utilization. Design/Methods A one-time survey was administered via the Canadian Paediatric Surveillance Program. The ten question adaptive survey was available in English or French, in either paper or electronic format. Survey responses were collected for 6 weeks in early 2020 with two reminders sent prior to survey closing. In addition to descriptive statistics, multinomial logistic regressions were built to examine pediatrician use of the IFHP, work with IFHP-covered patients, and provider characteristics associated with registration and use. Results Of the 2,753 pediatricians and pediatric subspecialists surveyed, there were 1006 respondents (36.5% response rate). 52.2% of respondents had provided care to the IFHP-eligible patients in the previous 6 months. Of those participants, only 26.4% were registered IFHP providers, and just 10% could identify all services covered by the IFHP (Figure 1). Knowledge of 80% or more of supplemental benefits was associated with registration status (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 1.92; 95% CI 1.09 - 3.37). Amongst 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 - 1.49) Conclusion We demonstrate that the IFHP is poorly utilized by pediatric providers, with low registration rates and poor understanding of the IFHP-covered supplemental services, even among those who have recently provided care to the IFHP-eligible patients. Efforts to improve registration and knowledge of the IFHP are essential to improving access to health care for refugee children and youth. Funding: Study funded by the CPSP Resident Research Grant

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies, Research integrity
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.504
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.003
Science and technology studies0.0030.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.116
GPT teacher head0.454
Teacher spread0.338 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designObservational
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

Citations1
Published2021
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePaediatrics & Child HealthSame topicChild and Adolescent HealthFrench-language works237,207