MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4405168431 · doi:10.3390/healthcare12232475

Sensory Health and Universal Health Coverage in Canada—An Environmental Scan

2024· review· en· W4405168431 on OpenAlexaffabout
Hanna Asheber, Renu Minhas, Ved Hatolkar, Atul Jaiswal, Walter Wittich

Bibliographic record

VenueHealthcare · 2024
Typereview
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicHealth disparities and outcomes
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSensory systemEnvironmental healthPsychologyMedicineCognitive psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background/Objectives: The World Federation of the Deafblind Global Report 2023 reports that many countries do not have a comprehensive identification, assessment, and referral system for persons with deafblindness, a combination of hearing and vision loss, across all age groups and geographic regions. The scan seeks to inform researchers, policymakers, and community-based organizations about the status of and gaps in sensory healthcare initiatives in Canada, with the intent to raise awareness to enhance the integration and coordination of eye and ear care services. Methods: We conducted an environmental scan of Canada’s healthcare system and current public health policies addressing vision and hearing care in Canada at the federal and provincial levels. The scan was conducted using published literature searches from five scientific databases—Embase, Medline, PsycINFO, PubMed, and CINAHL—in combination with the gray literature review of federal, provincial, and territorial governments and non-profit organizations’ websites from April 2011–October 2022. Out of 1257 articles screened, 86 studies were included that met the inclusion/exclusion criteria. In total, 13 reports were included in the gray literature search, with 99 total articles used in the analysis. Results: The thematic findings indicate stigma and discrimination toward individuals with disabilities and marginalized communities (Indigenous people, rural communities, recent immigrants, people of older age, and people with disabilities), including hearing, vision, or dual sensory loss, persist. Barriers to vision and hearing healthcare access include inadequate policies, underinvestment in vision and/or hearing services, limited collaboration and coordinated services between hearing and vision services, discrepancies in insurance coverages, and lack of health system support. Conclusions: This scan demonstrates the persisting barriers to vision and/or hearing services present in Canada, stemming from inadequate policy and limited service coordination. Future work to address gaps, evaluate public education, and develop integrated sensory healthcare initiatives to enhance coordinated eye and ear care services, as recommended in the WHO Report on Hearing and Vision, is imperative.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.969
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.076
GPT teacher head0.399
Teacher spread0.324 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

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

Citations1
Published2024
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHealthcareSame topicHealth disparities and outcomesFrench-language works237,207