Factors that influence the delivery of chiropractic services to equity-deserving groups in Canada: a qualitative study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Health inequities disproportionately impact equity-deserving groups, which include individuals marginalized due to race, ethnicity, Indigenous identity, sex and gender, socioeconomic status, and other social determinants of health. This qualitative study aimed to explore Canadian chiropractors' experiences and perceptions in delivering care to equity-deserving groups and identify individual and institutional factors that may influence care delivery. METHODS: We utilized interpretive description for data development, sampling, collection, and analysis. Participants were recruited as part of a larger mixed-methods research study, where we conducted a cross-sectional survey assessing Canadian chiropractors' diversity and cultural competency. We used maximum variation sampling to recruit chiropractors who indicated their interest in participating in the qualitative study. RESULTS: Fourteen participants (N = 7, female) were included in this study, ranging from 28-64 years of age. We identified three major themes: 1) Perceived role of institutions to advance cultural competency, describing the approaches and strategies of professional associations and educational institutions in making changes concerning diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI), 2) Fostering a culturally responsive clinical practice, describing factors that impact the delivery of care to equity-deserving groups (e.g. ensuring clinicians' cultural awareness and sensitivity, promoting culturally competent behaviours, and understanding patients' cultural values), and 3) Understanding the contextual determinants in accessing care (e.g., socioeconomic status, lack of accessibility, patient advocacy). CONCLUSION: The results suggest that culturally congruent care involves top-down and bottom-up approaches that integrate DEI practices at institutional and clinician levels. Specifically, the incorporation of DEI training within curricula, the development of policies that foster diversity, the engagement of equity-deserving groups to understand unique cultural needs, and tailoring treatments to each patient rather than a one-size-fits-all approach.
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 | 0.006 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.022 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".