Navigating “Being Seen”: Experiences of Older Adult Arab Immigrants and Family Caregivers Accessing Health Care Services in Ontario
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Immigrants to Canada face unique barriers to accessing health care including communication barriers, socioeconomic limitations, and a lack of health care system navigation knowledge. Arabs in particular face mainstream negative attitudes, propagated through political discourses as well as entertainment media. We sought to understand how older adult Arab immigrants and family caregivers accessed and experienced health care in Ontario. We conducted a critical constructivist grounded theory, using Charmaz’s approach to grounded theory. A critical constructivist grounded theory method asks not only “what” social processes are happening and “how” but also “why” and “who” benefits. Both older adult immigrant Arabs and family caregivers negotiated their visibility and being seen in the context of accessing health care. The subcategories co-constructed grounded in the data resulted in the grounded theory of being seen. The four subcategories included (1) Being seen as family, (2) Being seen by the Arab community, (3) Being seen in their countries of origin, and (4) Being seen as foreign. We found participants to be describing how and when they are being seen in health care settings, by health care providers, in relation to their diasporic communities, and in the context of their visibility as minorities in Canada. These findings point to the ways in which health care providers can begin to consider Arab older adult immigrants as service users to reduce barriers to service access and delivery.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".