The Access Paradox: unmet healthcare needs among young adults in Alberta – an exploratory study of the systemic ironies in healthcare accessibility
Bibliographic record
Abstract
There is a pressing need to investigate how young adults' access to healthcare, including how delayed help-seeking behaviours and the complexities inherent in traditional healthcare systems, exacerbate the challenges they face. This study explores the associations among functional impairments, self-perceptions of health, anxiety and mood disorders and their potential relationship to unmet healthcare needs among young adults aged 20-29. This cross-sectional study used data from the 2017-2018 Canadian Community Health Survey to analyse a sample of 1636 young adults from Alberta, Canada. Central to the analysis was the application of conceptual framework of access to health care, as it offers a comprehensive view of healthcare access. Among the sampled young adults, 7.0% reported unmet healthcare needs. Self-perceived unmet healthcare needs were significantly associated with anxiety disorders, functional impairments-specifically cognitive and social skills, and self-perceptions of poor or fair mental health, as opposed to those perceiving their mental health as excellent. Multivariable analyses incorporating extraneous variables were not statistically significant, emphasising the critical role of systemic and structural factors in healthcare access. The study presents preliminary insights into the intricate dynamics shaping unmet healthcare needs. These insights can guide future research and practice advances, particularly in developing targeted interventions that effectively reduce healthcare disparities and enhance access to healthcare services for young adults.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".