Identifying barriers to preventive care among First Nations people at risk of lower extremity amputation: a qualitative study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: First Nations people in Canada are overrepresented among those who have undergone nontraumatic lower extremity amputation, and are more likely to be younger, have diabetic foot infections and have no previous revascularization procedures than non-First Nations populations who have undergone lower extremity amputations. We sought to identify access barriers for high-risk First Nations patients, explore patients' experiences with health care systems and identify solutions. METHODS: Employing a community participatory research design, we engaged representatives from 2 communities. They assisted with research design and data analysis, and approved the final manuscript. Using a hermeneutic phenomenological approach and purposeful sampling, we conducted 5 semistructured focus groups between August and December 2021 with community health care teams and patients at risk for, or who had previously undergone, a nontraumatic lower extremity amputation. RESULTS: = 18) perspectives indicated that barriers to health care access led to delayed care and increased complications and risk for lower extremity amputations, leading to aggressive procedures upon receiving care. Barriers to care led to negative experiences at urban centres and aggressive procedures created further distrust, leading to care disengagement and poor outcomes. Patients and providers both suggested building stronger partnerships between urban and rural health care providers, improving education for patients and health care providers and identifying innovative strategies to improve patients' overall health. INTERPRETATION: Systemic changes, health promotional program and reliable on-reserve primary care are needed to create equitable access for First Nation patients at risk for lower extremity amputations. The study results imply that health care delivery for First Nations patients at risk for lower extremity amputations can be improved through stronger partnership and communication between urban and community providers, and continued education and cultural competency training for urban health care providers.
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 | 0.010 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".