MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4412018350 · doi:10.1007/s10903-025-01710-0

“We Should Not Call an Ambulance, Even If We are Very Sick”: Ukrainian Refugee Women’s Experiences in the United States Healthcare System

2025· article· en· W4412018350 on OpenAlexaff
Yana Gepshtein, Jung‐Ah Lee, Dawn T. Bounds, Candace W. Burton

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Immigrant and Minority Health · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicMigration, Health and Trauma
Canadian institutionsYork University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRefugeeHealth carePublic relationsGrounded theoryNursingMedicineSociologyQualitative researchPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

As the number and diversity of refugees worldwide increases, healthcare providers working with these populations face unique challenges. Thus, healthcare providers in host countries have limited understanding of challenges refugees face when using healthcare in host countries. The goal of the study is to achieve an interpretive understanding of women refugees' perspectives on their interactions with healthcare systems and providers, as well as to identify factors and processes that women refugees view as enabling or hindering their access to healthcare. Study participants were refugee women from Ukraine in the US (N = 17), who volunteered to take part in semi-structured interviews about their experiences in the US healthcare. The interviews were transcribed in original languages and analyzed using Charmaz's constructivist grounded theory methodology, which is based on constant comparison between codes and data exemplars within and between interviews. Three priority theoretical elements were identified: (1) barriers to care, which encompassed codes: uncertainty about costs, lack of health insurance, time constraints, difficulties in communication, problems of distance and transportation, and finding a trustworthy provider; (2) systemic and organizational features that hinder care, which encompassed codes: the system is confusing, inconsistencies across organizations and providers; limited scope of organizations meant to help refugees; and (3) processes and factors that do or would alleviate impediments to care, which encompassed codes: clear and relevant information, getting help from others, addressing patients' concerns, acknowledging patient circumstances. The study emphasizes the importance of continuity of care in refugee health, indicates the culture-bound nature of trust in healthcare providers, and underscores the essential role of non-formal and non-structured support for refugees.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.039
Threshold uncertainty score0.077

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0160.010
Scholarly communication0.0050.004
Open science0.0010.008
Research integrity0.0020.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.042
GPT teacher head0.355
Teacher spread0.313 · 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 designQualitative
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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Immigrant and Minority HealthSame topicMigration, Health and TraumaFrench-language works237,207