MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4404095335 · doi:10.1002/hpja.928

Public health policy for temporary seasonal workers with chronic hepatitis B in high‐income countries: A comparative analysis

2024· review· en· W4404095335 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Haylee Fox, William Mude, Geraldine Vaughan, Robyn Preston, Catherine O’Mullan, Zhihong Gu

Bibliographic record

VenueHealth Promotion Journal of Australia · 2024
Typereview
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicEmployment and Welfare Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPublic healthPopulation healthEquity (law)Health policyHealth equityPopulationHealth careHealth promotionMedicineEnvironmental healthEconomic growthPolitical scienceEconomicsNursing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ISSUE ADDRESSED: This study examines Australia's Hepatitis B public health policies with a focus on the Pacific Australia Labour Mobility scheme seasonal workers as a priority population. The aim is to evaluate if Australia's Hepatitis B public health policies adequately address health disparities and equitable access to health care for seasonal workers as a priority population. We draw comparisons with the public health policies of New Zealand and Canada, to understand how these nations approach similar health concerns among their temporary seasonal workers. METHODS: A health policy analysis was conducted on the public health Hepatitis B policies in Australia and then compared with those in Canada and New Zealand. Due to the nature of the study question, the review had a major focus on grey literature. The search was undertaken in two stages, including (1) Google search engine and (2) targeted websites. Basic document data was produced in descriptive summaries. Any data either explicitly or inexplicitly relating to the elimination of hepatitis B or equity towards the inclusion of seasonal workers was produced as analytical summaries through multiple revisions. RESULTS: Nineteen documents were identified, predominantly from Australia. Although Hepatitis B public health policies emphasised testing and awareness in priority populations, specifically mentioning seasonal workers as a priority population was absent in all three countries. CONCLUSIONS: The study underscores the exclusion of temporary seasonal workers in public health policies and strategies as a human rights issue, conflicting with principles of equity and equitable access to health care. Despite acknowledging challenges for temporary visa holders, policies lack specific provisions for seasonal workers. Addressing this gap is crucial for health equity and inclusive health systems. SO WHAT?: Our findings highlight the need to prioritise equity for temporary seasonal workers to achieve hepatitis B elimination goals by 2030. Exclusion from public health policies is a human rights concern, impacting access to quality health care. This study advocates for inclusive policies explicitly recognising temporary seasonal workers as a priority population, aligning with international human rights commitments to health care for all.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.008
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.028
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.052
Threshold uncertainty score0.103

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.028
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0040.007
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.335
GPT teacher head0.541
Teacher spread0.207 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations2
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHealth Promotion Journal of AustraliaSame topicEmployment and Welfare StudiesFrench-language works237,207