Having an on-site psychologist was highly satisfactory for patients and providers, resulting in improved patient care and outcomes.

RésuméLa littérature suggère l'hypothèse d'une santé différentielle des francophones en situation minoritaire au Canada. L'effet de minorité sur la santé perçue a été mesuré à l' aide des Enquêtes sur la santé dans les collectivités canadiennes (ESCC) de 2001 et 2003. Une analyse de régression logistique multivariée séquentielle montre que les francophones minoritaires -hommes et femmes -sont plus enclins à déclarer une moins bonne santé que les anglophones majoritaires. Contrairement aux femmes, cette disparité chez les hommes demeure significative même lorsque nous ajustons pour certains grands déterminants de la santé. L'étude illustre que l' action des déter-minants de santé peut être ainsi modulée par le rapport minoritaire/majoritaire. Les inégalités ainsi révélées appellent à une réflexion sur les politiques d' accès linguistique aux soins de santé. AbstractLiterature suggests the hypothesis that there is a health differential for minority Frenchspeaking groups in Canada. The effect of minority on perceived health has been measured using the 2001 and 2003 Canadian Community Health Survey (CCHS). The sequential multivariate logistic regression analysis shows that the minority Frenchspeaking groups -men and women -are more likely to declare a poorer health condition than the majority English-speaking groups. Contrary to women, this disparity among men groups remains significant even when adjustments are made according to some of the key health determinants. The study shows that the action of health determinants can be modulated by the minority/majority ratio. The identified disparities remind the need for a reflection on linguistic healthcare access policies.

This systematic review and meta‐analysis examined the prevalence and factors associated with vaccine hesitancy and vaccine unwillingness in Canada. Eleven databases were searched in March 2022. The pooled prevalence of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID‐19) vaccine hesitancy and unwillingness was estimated. Subgroup analyses and meta‐regressions were performed. Out of 667 studies screened, 86 full‐text articles were reviewed, and 30 were included in the systematic review. Twenty‐four articles were included in the meta‐analysis; 12 for the pooled prevalence of vaccine hesitancy (42.3% [95% CI, 33.7%–51.0%]) and 12 for vaccine unwillingness (20.1% [95% CI, 15.2%−24.9%]). Vaccine hesitancy was higher in females (18.3% [95% CI, 12.4%−24.2%]) than males (13.9% [95% CI, 9.0%−18.8%]), and in rural (16.3% [95% CI, 12.9%−19.7%]) versus urban areas (14.1% [95%CI, 9.9%−18.3%]). Vaccine unwillingness was higher in females (19.9% [95% CI, 11.0%−24.8%]) compared with males (13.6% [95% CI, 8.0%−19.2%]), non‐White individuals (21.7% [95% CI, 16.2%−27.3%]) than White individuals (14.8% [95% CI, 11.0%−18.5%]), and secondary or less (24.2% [95% CI, 18.8%−29.6%]) versus postsecondary education (15.9% [95% CI, 11.6%−20.2%]). Factors related to racial disparities, gender, education level, and age are discussed.