Exploring Primary Healthcare Experiences and Interest in Mobile Technology Engagement Amongst an Urban Population Experiencing Barriers to Care
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Mobile phone–based engagement approaches provide potential platforms for improving access to primary healthcare (PHC) services for underserved populations. We held two focus groups (February 2020) with residents ( n = 25) from a low-income urban neighbourhood (downtown Vancouver, Canada), to assess recent healthcare experiences and elicit interest in mobile phone–based healthcare engagement for underserved residents. Note-based analysis, guided by interpretative description, was used to explore emerging themes. Engagement in PHC was complicated by multiple, intersecting personal-level and socio-structural factors, and experiences of stigma and discrimination from care providers. Perceived inadequacy of PHC services and pervasive discrimination reported by participants indicate a significant and ongoing need to improve client–provider relationships to address unmet health needs. Mobile phone–based engagement was endorsed, highlighting phone ownership and client–provider text-messaging, facilitated by non-clinical staff such as peers, as helpful to strengthening retention and facilitating care team connection. Concerns raised included reliability, cost, and technology and language accessibility.
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 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 | 0.014 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".