MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W1990329765 · doi:10.1111/j.1365-2648.2004.03224.x

Minority groups: an outdated concept?

2004· editorial· en· W1990329765 sur OpenAlexaboutno aff
Larry D. Purnell

Notice bibliographique

RevueJournal of Advanced Nursing · 2004
Typeeditorial
Langueen
DomaineSocial Sciences
ThématiqueCultural Competency in Health Care
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésEthnic groupGovernment (linguistics)Context (archaeology)Minority groupMulticulturalismHealth careDiversity (politics)ConnotationHealth equityPolitical scienceFocus groupRace (biology)Public relationsMedicineGender studiesSociologyLawLinguisticsGeography

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

English-speaking countries such as Australia, Canada, New Zealand, United Kingdom, the United States, and perhaps India and South Africa, either have initiated or renewed their interests in multicultural diversity with a focus on decreasing minority, racial and ethnic disparities in health. The use of the word ‘minority’ is inappropriate in this context because of the way it is defined and used. The United States government definition of the word minority, ‘a group differing, especially in race, religion, or ethnic background from the majority’, not only includes race, religion and ethnic background as qualification for minority status, but also other more controversial sub-groups, such as those characterized by a distinctive alternative lifestyle (Office of Minority Health 2004). These minorities have become well recognized and therefore established. Accordingly, some groups are excluded as a minority and members of some minorities are not easily recognized as being part of other groupings. Moreover, ordering groups of people as ‘minorities’ carries the connotation of lesser than, or not as important as, the majority. Inevitably this has an adverse affect on education endeavours and government policy, and more importantly on health care. Using the word ‘minority’ in this way, with established meanings that are embedded in healthcare practices and encoded in laws, regulations, contracts and especially communications, is too simplified. It excludes, mis-defines, or distorts the very focus directed at ‘minority’ interests. The term minority is simply not useful for identifying all groups that need special attention in health care delivery. Take, for example, the early years of the acquired immunodeficiency syndrome (AIDS) crisis. All the stress on prevention and education was directed to the ‘minority’ gay subculture, resulting in a very large segment of the population believing that other groups were not affected. Only years later after a major pandemic was occurring, education about HIV and AIDS was finally directed at all vulnerable groups. In health care, and perhaps especially in nursing, we must be more visionary and recognize that we must group people according to their vulnerabilities. Any group, regardless of ethnicity or race but given the right context and circumstances, can become a vulnerable population and it is those groups that need to be more accurately defined. Consider the possible groups in my definitions of the primary and secondary characteristics of culture. These include age (young or old), nationality, race, colour, gender, religious affiliation, educational status, intellectual ability, socioeconomic status, political beliefs, marital status, parental status, disability and chronicity, sexual orientation, urban vs. rural status, lack of social power, and immigration status such as legal immigrant, sojourner, or undocumented (Purnell 2003, pp. 1–7) As one can see from the above examples, an individual, family, or group from the dominate culture can fall into a vulnerable population. With current usage of the term ‘minority’, the chance of many groupings being adequately addressed is greatly decreased. If we can accept a wider view of grouping people based on health disparities, which certainly includes ethnic and racial groups, we could work more effectively towards eliminating barriers to effective and equitable healthcare for many ethnocultural groups. Common barriers for any group include language abilities of the client and healthcare providers; availability of health and social services; accessibility of healthcare services to the client and family; affordability, appropriateness, adaptability, and acceptability of services; attitudes and approachability of healthcare providers; alternative and complementary practices and practitioners; and additional services that support the care of children or aging parents while accessing health care (Purnell 2003, pp. 8–53). The time has come to stop using the term ‘minority’ and replace it with the more correct word ‘vulnerable’ so that all groups in need get their deserved attention. Such groups need to be recognized, regardless of whether or not they are a recognized ‘minority’. Communities, healthcare organizations, and the nursing profession must re-develop healthcare services in ways that meet the needs of all citizens, regardless of culture or racial, ethnic, or minority status.

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Étiquettes directes de modèles (non validées)

Étiquettes de catégorie et de devis d'étude par modèle, issues des rondes d'étiquetage. C'est une sortie machine, non validée, et le désaccord entre modèles est livré comme donnée. Aucun devis ici n'est encore validé contre MEDLINE.

BrasCatégoriesDevis d'étudeConfiance
gemmaaucune catégorie
Domaine: non disponible · Genre: Éditorial
Porte sur le système de recherche canadien: non · Porte sur un sujet canadien: non
Sans objetlow
gptaucune catégorie
Domaine: non disponible · Genre: Éditorial
Porte sur le système de recherche canadien: non · Porte sur un sujet canadien: non
Sans objethigh
modèles en accordL'accord compare des ensembles de catégories et des devis identiques entre les bras.

Prédiction distillée sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,001
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesMéta-épidémiologie (sens strict)
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Sans objet · Signal consensuel: Sans objet
GenreSignal candidat: Éditorial · Signal consensuel: Éditorial
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,041
Score d'incertitude au seuil1,000

Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0010,003
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0010,000
Bibliométrie0,0000,000
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0010,000
Communication savante0,0000,001
Science ouverte0,0010,000
Intégrité de la recherche0,0010,002
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0000,000

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,023
Tête enseignante GPT0,396
Écart entre enseignants0,373 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Étiqueté directement par 2 modèles lisant le dossier complet.

Les modèles n’ont appliqué aucune catégorie : rien dans la taxonomie ne correspondait à ce travail.
Devis d'étudeSans objet
Domainenon disponible
GenreÉditorial

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations2
Publié2004
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueJournal of Advanced NursingMême sujetCultural Competency in Health CareTravaux en français237 207