Examining the Emergency Department Care Experiences of Equity-Deserving Groups Using an Intersectional Lens
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: Equity-deserving groups (EDGs) face societal barriers, including healthcare barriers within the emergency department (ED), due to discrimination. Most patient-care experience research considers only a single-axis perspective, neglecting multifaceted impacts of discrimination, or intersectionality. Methods: Detailed is a secondary analysis of a mixed-methods, cross-sectional study conducted at the Kingston Health Sciences Centre (KHSC) between June and August 2021. A quantitative analysis was conducted to identify differences between participants who did not identify as equity-deserving (controls), and those who identified with 1, 2, or 3 EDGs, respectively. The research team conducted thematic analysis on the shared micronarratives to contextualize the quantitative results. The research team also held focus groups with community partners that served EDGs to gain their insights on study findings and add their perspectives to the captured themes. Results: Comparing 1973 individuals belonging to none, 1, 2, or 3 EDGs revealed significant differences in patient-perceived attention to their needs ( P < .001), patient-control in health care decision-making ( P = .001), and whether quality medical care or experiencing kindness/respect was more important ( P = .003). Three themes were identified: stigma and discrimination, lack of patient-centered care, and need for improved patient-provider communication. Conclusion: The study’s findings contribute to a sparse body of evidence on EDG-care experiences in the ED through an intersectionality lens. Future research efforts should evaluate the complex interactions of specific EDG memberships to improve care experiences.
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 | 0.005 | 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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".