MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4410873978 · doi:10.32799/ijih.v20i1.42156

Understanding Burdens and Barriers to Dermatological Management, and Potential for Virtual Care in Northern and Rural Canadian Indigenous Communities: A National Healthcare Practitioner Cross-Sectional Survey Analysis

2025· article· en· W4410873978 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Rachel Asiniwasis, Nickoo Merati, Aysha Lukmanji, Oluwatosin Odeshi, Tamryn Eglington, Z Philips, Kelsey Hinther, Derek K. Chu, Brittany Waller, McKenzie Van Eaon, Lindsay Richels, Emma Dixon, Carolyn Jack, Trisha Campbell, Mamata Pandey

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Indigenous Health · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicTelemedicine and Telehealth Implementation
Canadian institutionsMcMaster UniversityDalhousie UniversitySaskatchewan Health AuthorityUniversity of CalgaryMcGill UniversitySaskatchewan Science CentreUniversity of Saskatchewan
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIndigenousHealth careCross-sectional studyNursingGeographyMedicineEnvironmental healthEcologyPolitical scienceBiologyPathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Northern and rural Canadian Indigenous communities (NRCIC) are well known to face health disparities, yet many remain formally not documented, including dermatologic challenges. We performed a mixed methods cross-sectional national survey of healthcare practitioners (HCPs) (n=50; mostly dermatologists, general practitioners, nurses, and pediatricians) to better understand the current NRCIC dermatology status and care needs, barriers to accessing dermatology and impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic, facilitators and barriers to virtual care, and practitioner recommendations. Most HCP participants identified NRCIC as underserviced in dermatologic care. HCPs reported atopic dermatitis and bacterial skin infections among the most common conditions, and consistently raised concerns for disproportionately severe and inadequately managed disease compared to urban populations. Barriers to accessing dermatology care in NRCIC broadly encompassed proximity to care, long wait times, inadequate supply and access to therapies, impractical and burdensome skin care regimens, socioeconomic and implementation barriers, transportation challenges, and cultural barriers. Although the COVID-19 pandemic helped establish virtual care for NRCIC to mitigate access-to-care issues, participants identified travel and cost-effectiveness barriers, concerns for poor infrastructure to sustain virtual care, inadequate photo quality, and lack of in-person care as persistent and growing problems. As future solutions, HCPs recommended increasing in-person dermatologist visits to remote communities, increasing educational dermatology care programs for rural HCPs, increasing use of virtual care to these communities, stimulating assistance (eg. coordinators) to facilitate care, and further cultural safety training. Future research addressing NRCIC, including direct input from community members, may help bridge dermatologic care gaps and improve health equity.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.018
Threshold uncertainty score0.131

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0040.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.055
GPT teacher head0.395
Teacher spread0.339 · 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 designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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
Published2025
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Indigenous HealthSame topicTelemedicine and Telehealth ImplementationFrench-language works237,207