Reasons for Self-Reported Unmet Healthcare Needs in Canada: A Population-Based Provincial Comparison
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this study, we compare self-perceived unmet need across Canadian provinces and assess how the reasons for unmet need -problems with availability, accessibility and acceptability -vary. This cross-sectional study uses data from the Canadian Community Health survey (2.1) conducted in 2003. Overall, 11.7% perceived having had unmet healthcare needs in the previous 12 months. The adjusted provincial rates varied from 13.3% in manitoba to 7.8% in Prince Edward Island. Among those reporting unmet health service needs, the leading reason was problems of availability of services (54.9%), followed by acceptability (42.8%) and accessibility related to cost or transportation (12.7%). unmet need due to problems of availability was most likely in quebec, Newfoundland and manitoba, while Alberta and British Columbia had the highest likelihood of unmet need due to accessibility problems. Those in British Columbia, saskatchewan and manitoba were more likely to report problems of acceptability. The reasons for unmet need vary across provinces, with each reason having different policy implications.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it