“Navigating chaos”: Urban, Rural, and Remote Patient Experiences in Accessing Healthcare with Indigenous and Non-Indigenous Perspectives of Living with Chronic Low Back Pain
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Healthcare access for chronic low back pain is complex and should consider not only the health system, but patient care seeking experiences as well. People who live in rural and remote communities and/or identify as being Indigenous may often encounter additional barriers to accessing care for chronic low back pain; thus, these contexts must be considered to fully understand barriers and facilitators. Aims: The aim of this study was to understand care-seeking experiences of people living with chronic back pain in Saskatchewan and determine unique experiences facing urban, rural, remote, and/or Indigenous peoples. Methods: Thirty-three participants with chronic low back pain completed a preliminary survey followed by individual semistructured interviews. Participants were categorized as urban, rural, or remote including Indigenous status. A qualitative interpretive research approach with inductive thematic analysis was employed. Results: Three overarching themes were identified with the following subthemes: (1) healthcare access challenges: challenges to accessing care, challenges within the health system, and challenges leading to self-directed management/coping strategies; (2) healthcare access facilitators: funded care, participant education and knowledge, patient-provider communication, and care closer to home; and (3) participant recommendations for improved care provision: coordination of care, integrative and holistic care, and patient-centered care and support. Rural and remote participants highlighted travel as a main barrier. Indigenous participant experiences emphasized communication with healthcare providers and past experiences influencing desire to access care. Conclusion: Participants identified a range of challenges and facilitators as well as recommendations for improving access to care for chronic low back pain, with unique barriers for rural, remote, and Indigenous participants.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".