Patient-reported experiences in primary health care access of Nepalese immigrant women in Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose Canada has a globally recognized universal health-care system. However, immigrants experience a number of obstacles in obtaining primary health care (PHC) that may differ within various communities due to the intersection of culture, gender and other identities. To date, no research has been done on the difficulties Nepalese immigrant women in Canada may face accessing PHC. The purpose of this study was to learn about their perceptions of barriers to PHC access and to share the findings with a wide range of stakeholders, including health-care providers and policymakers. Design/methodology/approach The authors conducted a community-engaged qualitative study in Calgary, Alberta, Canada. A total of six focus group discussions (FGD) among 34 participants (each FGD consisted of 5–7 participants) were conducted. The authors collected demographic information before each focus group. The FGDs were audio recorded and transcribed verbatim. The transcriptions were coded and analysed thematically. Findings The focus groups identified long wait times as a major barrier to receiving PHC services. Long wait times in emergency rooms, unable to see family doctors when they were sick, tedious referral procedures, long waits at the clinic even after scheduling an appointment, family responsibilities and work all impacted their access to PHC. Further, a lack of proficiency in English was another significant barrier that impeded effective communication between physicians and immigrant women patients, thus compromising the quality of care. Other barriers mentioned included lack of access to medical records for walk-in doctors, insufficient lab/diagnostic services, a lack of urgent care services and unfamiliarity with the Canadian health-care system. Originality/value Accessible PHC is essential for the health of immigrant populations in Canada. This study recognizes the extent of the barriers among a relatively less studied immigrant population group, Nepalese immigrant women, which will help effectively shape public policy and improve access to PHC for the versatile immigrant population fabric 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 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 | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.011 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".