MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4385585719 · doi:10.2196/47288

Immigrant, Refugee, and Indigenous Canadians’ Experiences With Virtual Health Care Services: Rapid Review

2023· review· en· W4385585719 on OpenAlexafffundvenueabout
Megan MacPherson

Bibliographic record

VenueJMIR Human Factors · 2023
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicTelemedicine and Telehealth Implementation
Canadian institutionsFraser Health
FundersFraser Health Authority
KeywordsRefugeeIndigenousImmigrationHealth carePolitical scienceSociologyMedicineNursing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: The remote, dispersed, and multicultural population of Canada presents unique challenges for health care services. Currently, virtual care solutions are being offered as an innovative solution to improve access to care. OBJECTIVE: Given the inequities in health care access faced by immigrant, refugee, and Indigenous Canadians, this review aimed to summarize information obtained from original research regarding these people's experiences with virtual care services in Canada. METHODS: We conducted a rapid review following published recommendations. MEDLINE and CINAHL were searched for studies relating to virtual care and Canadian immigrants, refugees, or Indigenous peoples. Peer-reviewed articles of any type were included so long as they included information on the experiences of virtual care service delivery in Canada among the abovementioned groups. RESULTS: This review demonstrates an extreme paucity of evidence examining the experiences of immigrant, refugee, and Indigenous groups with virtual care in Canada. Of the 694 publications screened, 8 were included in this review. A total of 2 studies focused on immigrants and refugees in Canada, with the remaining studies focusing on Indigenous communities. Results demonstrate that virtual care is generally accepted within these communities; however, cultural appropriateness or safety and inequitable access to wireless services in certain communities were among the most cited barriers. CONCLUSIONS: Little evidence exists outlining immigrants', refugees', and Indigenous peoples' perspectives on the landscape of virtual care in Canada. The development of virtual care programming should take into consideration the barriers, facilitators, and recommendations outlined in this review to improve equitable access. Further, developers should consult with local community members to ensure the appropriateness of services for immigrant, refugee, and Indigenous communities 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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.025
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.437
Threshold uncertainty score0.880

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.025
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0120.022
Science and technology studies0.0030.002
Scholarly communication0.0060.002
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.066
GPT teacher head0.413
Teacher spread0.346 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations9
Published2023
Admission routes4
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJMIR Human FactorsSame topicTelemedicine and Telehealth ImplementationFrench-language works237,207