Experiencing Difficulties Accessing First-Contact Health Services in Canada: Canadians without regular doctors and recent immigrants have difficulties accessing first-contact healthcare services. Reports of difficulties in accessing care vary by age, sex and region.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this study, we identify the significant factors associated with having difficulties accessing first-contact healthcare services. Population-based data from two national health surveys, the Health Services Access Survey and the Canadian Community Health Survey, were used to identify respondents who required first-contact services for themselves or for a family member during 2003. Fifteen percent of Canadians reported difficulty accessing routine care, and 23% reported difficulties with immediate care. Physician/service availability was the chief reason cited for difficulties accessing routine care, while for urgent care, it was long wait times. Women, younger respondents and residents of eastern Canada and Quebec were consistently more likely to report difficulties accessing both types of these first-contact services, whereas less educated Canadians were less likely to report problems. Canadians without a regular family doctor were more than twice as likely to report difficulties accessing routine care compared to those who had a regular doctor. New immigrants were almost two and a half times more likely to report difficulties accessing immediate care than were Canadian-born respondents. Household income was not associated with difficulties accessing either type of care. The relatively low level of reporting of difficulties by older and less educated Canadians may be related, in part, to more modest expectations about the healthcare system.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".