Shaping the care they deserve: Needs, expectations and recommendations of healthcare provision at the New Canadians Health Centre for Afghan refugee women in Edmonton
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This qualitative inquiry delved into the healthcare needs and experiences of Afghan refugee women resettled in Canada, addressing three primary research questions. Employing a community-based participatory research approach alongside qualitative narrative inquiry, the study explored the lived experiences of Afghan women refugees accessing healthcare services, at the New Canadians Health Centre (NCHC). Through focus groups with six NCHC staff and semi-structured interviews with three Afghan women clients, a nuanced understanding of their healthcare journeys emerged. The findings underscored the multifaceted nature of their experiences, tracing back to pre-migration challenges in Afghanistan, including societal constraints and disparities in healthcare access. Post-resettlement, the women navigated identity shifts, daily life adjustments, and interactions with the Canadian healthcare system, encountering both positive and challenging experiences. Access to medication and mental health support emerged as crucial post-resettlement needs, while reliance on community networks for health information persisted. Despite obstacles, Afghan refugee women demonstrated resilience and agency, advocating for their health equity. Their insights offered valuable recommendations for culturally sensitive service provision. Ultimately, this study highlighted the imperative of culturally safe healthcare practices and underscored the transformative role of community and empowerment in shaping the healthcare experiences of Afghan refugee women in Canada.
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 | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.025 | 0.013 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".