Costs of medical evacuation and transportation of First Nations Peoples and Inuit who travel for medical care in Canada: A systematic review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: For First Nations people and Inuit who live on reserves or in rural and remote areas, a guideline requires their travel to urban centres once their pregnancy reaches 36-38 weeks gestation age to await labour and birth. While not encoded in Canadian legislation, this guideline-and invisible policy-is reinforced by the lack of alternatives. Research has repeatedly demonstrated the harm of obstetric evacuation, causing emotional, physical, and financial stress for pregnant and postpartum Indigenous women and people. Our objective was to describe the costs of obstetric evacuation, as reported in the literature. METHODS: We conducted a systematic review using online searches of electronic databases (Ovid EMBASE, CINAHL, Ovid Healthstar, PubMed, ScienceDirect, PROSPERO, and Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews) and identified studies that reported costs related to medical evacuation or transportation in rural and remote Indigenous communities. We performed critical appraisal of relevant studies. SYNTHESIS: We identified 19 studies that met the inclusion criteria. The studies reported various types of cost, including direct, indirect, and intangible costs. Medical evacuation costs ranged from CAD $7714 to CAD $31,794. Indirect and intangible costs were identified, including lost income and lack of respect for cultural practices. CONCLUSION: Costs associated with obstetric evacuation are high, with medical evacuation as the most expensive direct cost identified. Although we were able to identify a range of costs, information on financing and funding flows was unclear. Across Canada, additional research is required to understand the direct costs of obstetric evacuation to Indigenous Peoples and communities.
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 | 0.007 | 0.052 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.015 | 0.021 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".