Exploring healthcare priorities, barriers, access and experiences of a family-centred approach among families seeking asylum in North London
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Children and families seeking asylum have significant unmet health needs. The Respond service was established in response to high numbers of families seeking asylum arriving in Camden (London, UK) in August 2021 and delivers hospital and community-based holistic assessment and infectious disease screening for this population. Families are seen in a joint appointment by a multidisciplinary team of adult and paediatric health professionals. We explored the priorities, barriers and experiences around healthcare access among families using the service and the acceptability and perceived effectiveness of a family-centred approach from the perspective of service users, service providers and key stakeholders. Methods: We employed qualitative and quantitative approaches. Questionnaires and semistructured interviews were completed between July and September 2022. Questionnaires were built on Google Forms and Envoy Messenger (Healthcare Communications). Thematic analysis was performed and structured by key themes. Data were analysed with the assistance of NVivo. Results: Access to dental care, primary care and immunisations were identified as key priorities for families. Significant barriers of access to care included understanding (language), situation (temporary accommodation) and awareness (unfamiliarity with systems, digital poverty, signposting). The Respond family-centred model was positively received by service users, service providers and stakeholders. Benefits included the provision of holistic family-centred care and support, efficiency and value-for-money for the health service. Areas needing ongoing input were language barriers, educational support for staff and service users and continued collaboration and co-creation between service providers and service users. Conclusion: Recognising the priorities and barriers identified in this study is crucial for enhancing access to and utilisation of services within this underserved community. The Respond family-centred model was well received and perceived as effective by service users, providers and stakeholders. It serves as a foundational framework for developing tailored services for children and families seeking asylum across the UK and internationally.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".