Interim Federal Health Program: Survey of use of supplemental benefits by paediatric health care providers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objectives: The Interim Federal Health Program (IFHP) provides temporary healthcare coverage to refugees and refugee claimants. Previous research demonstrates that paediatric healthcare providers poorly utilize the IFHP, with low registration rates and limited understanding of the program. The objective of this study was to examine paediatric provider use of IFHP-covered supplemental benefits, and their experience with trying to access these benefits. Methods: A one-time survey was administered via the Canadian Paediatric Surveillance Program in February 2020. Of those who had provided care to IFHP-eligible patients, descriptive tables and statistics were created looking at provider demographics, and experience using the IFHP supplemental benefits. A multinomial logistic regression was built to look at provider characteristics associated with trying to access supplemental benefits. Results: Of the 2,753 physicians surveyed, there were 1,006 respondents (general paediatricians and subspecialists). Of the respondents, 526 had recently provided care to IFHP-eligible patients. Just over 30% of those who had recently provided care did not access supplemental benefits as they did not know they were covered by the IFHP. Of those who had tried to access supplemental benefits, over 80% described their experience as difficult, or very difficult. Conclusions: Paediatric providers have a poor understanding of IFHP-covered supplemental benefits, which is cited as a reason for not trying to access supplemental benefits. Of those who do try to access these benefits, they describe the process as difficult. Efforts should be made to improve provider knowledge and streamline the process to improve access to healthcare for refugee children and youth.
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".