Refugees’ Care Experiences, Self-Reported Health Outcomes and Transition to Mainstream Health Care After One Year at the Refugee Engagement and Community Health (REACH) Clinic
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study reports how refugees experienced care at an integrated clinic during their first year in Canada and how they transitioned to a community physician. A survey was completed by 75 Government Assisted Refugees followed at the REACH clinic between 2018 and 2020; 16 agreed to an additional interview. Regression modelling explored the relationship between "perceived health status at one year" and several independent variables. Qualitative thematic analysis provided context. Tailored access to care and enhanced communication through interpretation contributed to satisfaction with clinic services. A significant positive relationship was found between their perceived health status and frequency of visits (p < 0.042), and "doctors' advice about how to stay healthy" (p < 0.039). Interview findings highlighted the important role of settlement agencies, timing for a successful transition and physicians' support resources. While refugees benefit from attending integrated clinics, these should also prepare the care transition to community physicians. Targeted government funding and continued medical education could enhance refugees' transition experience.
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".