MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W2460390767

Indigenous and minority peoples and cultural safety: the role of Nursing Praxis.

2014· editorial· en· W2460390767 sur OpenAlexaboutno aff
Denise Wlson

Notice bibliographique

RevuePubMed · 2014
Typeeditorial
Langueen
DomaineSocial Sciences
ThématiqueCultural Competency in Health Care
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésPraxisCultural safetyIndigenousNursingNursing researchHealth equitySociologyHealth carePolitical sciencePublic relationsMedicinePublic healthLaw
DOInon disponible

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Undeniably, Nursing Praxis has played an important role in promoting nursing research addressing the nexus between nurses' practice and the people with whom they work. The journal began as a place for nurses to exchange ideas, and to contemplate what nursing is about, and envision its future directions (Perry, 1985). The current strategic focus for Nursing Praxis is cultural safety, indigenous health, and vulnerable populations. Since the first publication of Nursing Praxis in November 1985, 31% of all the articles pertain to cultural safety (25%), indigenous (15%), and vulnerable (60%) populations. Dissemination and translation of research is essential to assist practitioners, funders, planners, and policy makers in their roles. It is the what? question that we should ask when reviewing research outcomes. Moreover, this crystallises the need for interpretations of research findings with Indigenous, minority and vulnerable groups to also be critically informed by concepts such as social justice, human rights, equity, and intersectionality.Nursing Praxis is recognised nationally and internationally as a place where authors can pubish research or discursive papers related to cultural safety, indigenous health, and vulnerable populations. For me, the need and importance for nurses and other health professionals to disseminate research and ignite debate was highlighted at conferences I attended last year (that is, the International Academy of Nurse Editors Conference (held in Cork, Ireland) and the Critical Perspectives in Nursing and Health Care Conference (held in Vancouver, Canada)). That Nursing Praxis has a place in the world was confirmed by the responses to a presentation at last year's International Academy of Nurse Editors conference in Cork, Ireland, about our journal and what we were doing. With the update of our website, we have been able to take advantage of the analytic tools to see that approximately half of those visiting the Nursing Praxis website are international visitors, predominately from North America.The nexus between people's culture and health is complex, yet its importance for nurses and health providers will undeniably grow with the increasing multiplicity, diversity, and complexity of ethnic and cultural groups within many communities. In addition to Indigenous peoples and those with settler ancestry, increasing and diverse migratory patterns, particularly the mix of new migrants, those who have lived in a country for two or more generations, intermarriage, and the recognition of the cultural needs of nonethnic groups such as those with disabilities makes this an important area in which to share ideas, research findings, and to debate their various aspects in relation to health and wellbeing. The tenet that culture is an important factor in the health and wellbeing of people, their whanau/families, and communities has been long established within health and nursing (Leininger, 1970). Nonetheless, people belonging to Indigenous, minority, and vulnerable groups encounter cultural dissonance on a daily basis. This is so even with a backdrop where cultural safety and cultural competence feature as part of the New Zealand regulated health workforce practice requirements, and there are ongoing global and societal calls to address existing inequalities and inequities. Cultural responsiveness is an area that we constantly grapple with as a profession, generally with universal approaches to nursing and health service delivery being the default position. …

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

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 candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Sans objet · Signal consensuel: aucune
GenreSignal candidat: Éditorial · Signal consensuel: Éditorial
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,600
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,997

Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0010,003
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0000,000
Bibliométrie0,0000,000
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0010,001
Communication savante0,0000,000
Science ouverte0,0000,000
Intégrité de la recherche0,0010,001
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 Opus0,018
Tête enseignante GPT0,299
Écart entre enseignants0,281 · 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

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.

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
Publié2014
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revuePubMedMême sujetCultural Competency in Health CareTravaux en français237 207