Experiences of Providers and Immigrants/Refugees with Health Care: A Meta-Synthesis of the Latin American Context
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: The experiences of providers and immigrants/refugees related to healthcare in the Latin American context have not yet been aggregated. This study aimed to synthesize the qualitative evidence on this theme. METHOD: A systematic review of qualitative evidence with meta-synthesis. After identification, eligible studies were evaluated for methodological quality, and information was systematically analyzed. RESULTS: The sample comprised 26 articles. The meta-theme shows that the experiences of providers and immigrants/refugees are determined by multilevel factors. In a macro-context, these factors involve the vulnerabilities of immigrants/refugees and the healthcare system/model, and in a closer context, they involve the lack of professional training in cultural skills and communication; language barriers; and prejudice/xenophobia. Within healthcare, the relationship is mostly conflictual, asymmetric, and unable to solve problems, leading to negative repercussions for both. CONCLUSIONS: Managers involved in developing public policies and providers must consider improving the interrelationship between healthcare services and the migrant population.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".