Exploring barriers to accessing health care services by young women in rural settings: a qualitative study in Australia, Canada, and Sweden
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The aim of this study is to explore young rural women's perceived barriers in accessing healthcare services with a focus on the interrelation between three marginalization criteria: age (youth), gender (female), and place of residence (rural areas) in Australia, Canada, and Sweden. METHODS: Using a qualitative interpretive approach, we conducted semi-structured in-depth interviews with 31 young women aged 18 to 24 in selected rural communities. Data collection took place from May 2019 to January 2021, and the qualitative data were analyzed using NVivo software. RESULTS: Self-perceived barriers for access to healthcare services among young women living in rural and remote areas encompass various challenges across individual, institutional, and structural levels. Individual barriers include limited knowledge about available health services, negative attitudes toward healthcare, psychological discomfort when seeking assistance, and economic affordability issues. Institutional challenges involve limited healthcare resources, gender insensitivity among providers, judgmental attitudes from healthcare staff, inadequate time management of services, and a lack of privacy and confidentiality within facilities. Structural barriers further compound these issues through socio-cultural and gender norms, insufficient coverage of universal health insurance, low budget allocations for health facilities in rural and small urban areas, and the geographic distance to healthcare providers. Addressing these multifaceted barriers is crucial to improving healthcare access for rural population. CONCLUSIONS: Appropriate strategies and policies must be introduced to promote access to healthcare services in rural and remote areas even in most high-`income countries.
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 | 0.008 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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".