First Nations, Inuit and Métis Peoples Living in Urban Areas of Canada and Their Access to Healthcare: A Systematic Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In Canada, approximately 52% of First Nations, Inuit and Métis (Indigenous) peoples live in urban areas. Although urban areas have some of the best health services in the world, little is known about the barriers or facilitators Indigenous peoples face when accessing these services. This review aims to fill these gaps in knowledge. Embase, Medline and Web of Science were searched from 1 January 1981 to 30 April 2020. A total of 41 studies identified barriers or facilitators of health service access for Indigenous peoples in urban areas. Barriers included difficult communication with health professionals, medication issues, dismissal by healthcare staff, wait times, mistrust and avoidance of healthcare, racial discrimination, poverty and transportation issues. Facilitators included access to culture, traditional healing, Indigenous-led health services and cultural safety. Policies and programs that remove barriers and implement the facilitators could improve health service access for Indigenous peoples living in urban and related homelands 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 | 0.004 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.011 | 0.020 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".