MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4296925725 · doi:10.26685/urncst.389

Barriers to Access among Indigenous Women Seeking Prenatal Care: A Literature Review

2022· review· en· W4296925725 on OpenAlexaffabout
Zarish Jawad, Nikita Chugh, Karina Daddar

Bibliographic record

VenueUndergraduate Research in Natural and Clinical Science and Technology (URNCST) Journal · 2022
Typereview
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicIndigenous Health, Education, and Rights
Canadian institutionsWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIndigenousDistrustCINAHLHealth carePrenatal careMedicineFamily medicineScopusNursingMEDLINEEnvironmental healthPsychological interventionPsychologyPopulationPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduction: Indigenous women in Canada suffer disproportionately adverse prenatal outcomes due to access barriers in Canada's healthcare system. This paper aims to identify barriers Indigenous women face in accessing prenatal care in Canada. Methods: A literature search was conducted by all three authors using the following databases: PubMed, SCOPUS and CINAHL, and the keywords "Indigenous," "prenatal care," "access barriers," "maternal health," and "Canada." The search results yielded a total of 100 studies. Results: The studies included were written in English only, included Indigenous females between the age of 19–35, and excluded review articles. Twelve studies met the inclusion criteria and were included in the review. Participants in the studies examined did not have any severe underlying medical conditions for the duration of the study, and study designs included in the review are prospective cohort, cross-sectional, case report, and case-control studies. Five studies discussed the geographical distribution of facilities as the first major barrier to accessing prenatal care. Four studies identified distrust between patients and healthcare providers as the second major barrier, and six studies identified lack of culturally sensitive prenatal care as the third major access barrier. Discussion: The study found three main barriers Indigenous women face in accessing prenatal care in Canada; the geographical distribution of healthcare facilities, distrust between patients and healthcare professionals, and cultural sensitivity. Some changes in Canada's healthcare system to reduce access barriers to prenatal care include building more birthing and prenatal care facilities in rural areas for Indigenous women, educating healthcare professionals on culturally sensitive healthcare, and involving Indigenous people in decision-making to reduce distrust and power imbalances. Conclusion: The involvement of Indigenous women and community leaders is essential in making decisions regarding implementing effective healthcare and prenatal programs for Indigenous women. However, further research is required to understand the effectiveness of the solutions and the barriers that make prenatal care less accessible for Indigenous women in Canada.

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.022
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.516
Threshold uncertainty score0.973

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.022
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.002
Bibliometrics0.0150.020
Science and technology studies0.0030.002
Scholarly communication0.0040.002
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.066
GPT teacher head0.478
Teacher spread0.412 · 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 designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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
Published2022
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueUndergraduate Research in Natural and Clinical Science and Technology (URNCST) JournalSame topicIndigenous Health, Education, and RightsFrench-language works237,207