1. Objectifs

Intentions :
«[T]his paper focuses on the discrepancy between immigrant and non-immigrant paediatric patient populations with regard to FGIDs [functional gastrointestinal disorders] and exposes the different paths to care that both immigrant and non-immigrant families undertake in response to their child’s symptoms.» (p. 516)

Questions/Hypothèses :
«[W]hat do immigrant children and their families do when they experience FGIDs? Do immigrant families adopt alternative strategies to care for FGIDs that may explain their underrepresentation within the overall paediatric gastrointestinal disorders patient population? Do immigrant families view a child’s stomach pain as commonplace and therefore not requiring medical attention? Do immigrant children complain less frequently or do families’ immigration and resettlement preoccupations override these complaints and explain their underrepresentation in the gastroenterology clinic?» (p. 516)

2. Méthode

Échantillon/Matériau :
L’échantillon est composé de 38 familles montréalaises dont certaines issues de l’immigration.

Instruments :
Guide d’entretien semi-directif

Type de traitement des données :
Analyse de contenu

3. Résumé

«Beyond the immigrant and non-immigrant subgroups central to our study, three types of therapeutic spaces emerged from the parents’ and children’s narratives in relation to FGIDs. These paths to care are the home, complementary and alternative therapies and biomedical treatments. Many families (29 of 38), regardless of immigrant background or place of recruitment, turned to biomedical health services (paediatricians and GPs [general practitioners], hospital emergencies, as well as paediatric or paediatric gastroenterology clinics) at least once for their child’s stomach aches. However, fewer immigrant families (2∕11) than non-immigrant families (9∕11) were referred to a paediatric gastroenterology clinic. All families used home remedies, while a third of them also used alternative healing therapies.» (p. 5) «[O]ur study suggests that culture (inclusive of social status, ethnic background, religion and gender), as well as interactions within families and clinical settings, significantly influence pathways to care.» (p. 521)