MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4379619743 · doi:10.1353/his.2023.a899626

Foreign Practices: Immigrant Doctors and the History of Canadian Medicare by Sasha Mullally and Wright David (review)

2023· article· en· W4379619743 on OpenAlexvenueaboutno aff
Heather MacDougall

Bibliographic record

VenueHistoire sociale · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicHistory of Science and Medicine
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsWrightImmigrationHealth careHistoriographyMedicinePopulationGovernment (linguistics)NursingPolitical scienceSociologyLawHistory

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Reviewed by: Foreign Practices: Immigrant Doctors and the History of Canadian Medicare by Sasha Mullally and Wright David Heather MacDougall Mullally, Sasha and David Wright–Foreign Practices: Immigrant Doctors and the History of Canadian Medicare. Montréal and Kingston: McGill-Queen’s University Press, 2020. 366 p. Foreign Practices by medical historians Sasha Mullally and David Wright is an ambitious effort to decentre the historiographical focus on politics in making the icon of Canadian health care policy: Medicare. Mullally and Wright focus on the crucial role immigrant doctors played in providing medical services during the early phases of government action in health care, starting with the Hospital Insurance and Diagnostic Services Act (1957) and its successor, the Medical Care Act (1966). As they cogently argue, Canada had always relied on international medical migrants but rapid population growth in the 1950s and the Royal Commission on Health Services’ (RCHS) pointed references to the lack of health care professionals in all disciplines made its recommendation for publicly funded “medically necessary services” the issue at the top of the policy agenda. But the timing of the “socialization” of Canadian health care meant that Canada also participated in the transnational movement of highly trained professionals with its expected and unexpected consequences. But how did health care become so intimately entwined with immigration policy? This important question highlights the second significant component of their analysis and justifies their mixed methodology for the study. In essence, their work is intended to bring social history into current and future discussions of the history of Medicare by examining the impact of both legislation and policy implementation through the lived experiences of migrant practitioners. Placing their work within the field of transglobal migration studies requires Mullally and Wright to describe the complexities of the division of powers between the federal and provincial governments succinctly since the comparator nations, such as the United States, the United Kingdom, Australia, and other western nations, generally have different political approaches to health care policies and the groups being covered. By focusing primarily on the period from 1957 to 1984, Mullaly and Wright demonstrate the way doctors and nurses migrated in response to “push” (rigid hierarchies and racism) and “pull” (better salaries, adventure, opportunity) factors that reflected both personal imperatives and national policies. Using personal recollections to open each chapter also illustrates the gap between accepted sociological interpretations and individual motivations for emigration. The key events in immigration policy include the Fairclough Initiative in 1962, which lifted the restriction on Commonwealth migration and thus contributed to the [End Page 230] arrival of doctors and nurses from India, Pakistan, South Africa, and the Caribbean. World conflicts throughout the period also meant that doctors from Egypt, Hungary, Czechoslovakia, Haiti, Uganda, and Taiwan also joined the Canadian workforce, especially after 1967 when a new Immigration Act introduced the “points system.” This legislation identified training and education as highly desirable criteria for immigrants and was to be particularly important since studies prepared for the provinces in the early 1950s and the Royal Commission on Health Services in the 1960s revealed a significant shortfall in health care personnel despite increasing medical migration from Great Britain and the arrival of nurses trained in the Caribbean and the Philippines in the 1950s. Why was this so important? What did it mean for the implementation of a national medical services program? As the introduction of national hospital insurance between 1958 and 1961 had demonstrated, Canada needed many more doctors, nurses, and allied health care personnel than were currently available. The country also required better distribution of resources rather than the growing concentration of medical education and services in rapidly expanding urban areas. To deal with the pent-up demand that would arise when the national medical services program was implemented, the RCHS recommended not only hiring many more foreign health care workers but also creating seven new medical schools and expanding hospitals and postgraduate specialty training. The Pearson government responded with the Health Resources Fund, which provided federal support for expanding universities and hospitals in all the provinces and funding three new medical schools in Quebec (Sherbrooke), Ontario (McMaster), and Alberta (Calgary). The deans at each school looked overseas as...

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.342
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.004
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.034
GPT teacher head0.229
Teacher spread0.195 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2023
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHistoire socialeSame topicHistory of Science and MedicineFrench-language works237,207