‘We don’t have the right to get sick’: A qualitative study of gaps in public health insurance among Im/migrant women in British Columbia, Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Globally, the exclusion of im/migrants from public health care systems remains a significant health and human rights issue, calling into question claims of 'universality' of public health systems where eligibility for coverage is determined by immigration status. We aimed to describe lived experiences of health insurance coverage and the health and social impacts of gaps in health insurance amongst im/migrant women in British Columbia (BC), Canada. This analysis draws on qualitative in-depth interviews (n = 78) with im/migrant women and im/migrant-focused service providers (n = 10) conducted between July 2018-March 2021 in Metro Vancouver, BC, as part of a larger community-based, mixed-methods study of im/migrants' health access (IRIS). In contrast to common perceptions of Canada's health system as 'universal', participants faced multifaceted barriers to health insurance and necessary healthcare for themselves and their families following arrival in BC. Narratives highlighted the ways in which ineligibility for public health insurance coverage resulted in unmet needs for essential sexual and reproductive health and preventive care among im/migrant women, children, and families. Participants also described ineligibility for public health insurance as resulting in a high economic burden, and that exclusion from public health insurance perpetuated experiences of discrimination, invisibility, and exclusion from systems of care amongst im/migrant participants. Despite these structural challenges, participant narratives highlighted the crucial role of community-based supports for minimizing harm and navigating oppressive immigration and health systems. Changes to immigration and health policies are required to remove barriers to public health care for im/migrant women and ensure that Canada's health system is accessible to all. Expanding health insurance options to cover all residents and decoupling health insurance eligibility from immigration status are recommended, alongside implementation of 'Sanctuary' policies at the local level.
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 | 0.005 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.025 | 0.014 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".