MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4386178561 · doi:10.1177/11786329231193794

Healthcare Access Challenges and Facilitators for Back Pain Across the Rural-Urban Continuum in Saskatchewan, Canada: Cross-Sectional Results From a Provincial-Wide Telephone Survey

2023· article· en· W4386178561 on OpenAlex
Katie Crockett, Stacey Lovo, Alison Irvine, Catherine Trask, Sarah Oosman, Veronica McKinney, Terrence McDonald, Nazmi Sari, Bertha Carnegie, Marie Custer, Stacey McIntosh, Brenna Bath

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueHealth Services Insights · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMusculoskeletal pain and rehabilitation
Canadian institutionsUniversity of CalgaryUniversity of Saskatchewan
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchSaskatchewan Health Research Foundation
KeywordsIndigenousHealth careReferralMedicineRural areaFamily medicineCross-sectional studyNursingEconomic growth

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Chronic back pain is a common musculoskeletal disorder, disproportionately affecting rural and Indigenous people. Saskatchewan has a relatively high proportion of rural and Indigenous residents; therefore, understanding barriers and facilitators to accessing healthcare are needed to improve healthcare service delivery. Methods: A provincial-wide telephone survey explored experiences and perceived healthcare access barriers and facilitators among 384 Saskatchewan residents who experienced chronic low back pain. Chi-squared tests were performed to determine if people who lived in urban versus rural areas differed in the proportion who had accessed services from various healthcare practitioners. T-test and Mann-Whitney U analyses were conducted to determine differences between urban and rural, and Indigenous and non-Indigenous respondents. Results: Of 384 residents surveyed, 234 (60.9%) reported living in a rural location; 21 (5.5%) identified as Indigenous. Wait times (47%), cost (40%), travel (39%), and not knowing how to seek help (37%) were the most common barriers for Saskatchewan residents seeking care, with travel being the only barrier that was significantly different between rural and urban respondents ( P ⩽ .001). Not knowing where to go to access care or what would help their low back pain ( P = .03), lack of cultural sensitivity ( P = .007), and comfort discussing problems with health care professionals ( P = .26) were greater barriers for Indigenous than non-Indigenous participants. Top facilitators (>50% of respondents) included publicly funded healthcare, locally accessible healthcare services, and having supportive healthcare providers who facilitate referral to appropriate care, with urban respondents considering the latter 2 as greater facilitators than rural respondents. Telehealth or virtual care ( P = .013) and having healthcare options nearby in their community ( P = .045) were greater facilitators among Indigenous participants compared to non-Indigenous respondents. Conclusions: Rural, urban, Indigenous, and non-Indigenous people report overlapping and unique barriers and facilitators to accessing care for chronic low back pain. Understanding perceived access experiences will assist in developing more effective care models for specific communities or regions.

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.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.121
Threshold uncertainty score0.782

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.035
GPT teacher head0.339
Teacher spread0.304 · 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