A national survey of Swiss paediatric oncology care providers’ cross-cultural competences
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Culturally diverse countries such as Switzerland face the challenge of providing cross-cultural competent care. Cross-cultural competent care needs an understanding of a patient's cultural context in order to provide safe and effective care. Therefore, we sought to examine cross-cultural competence of Swiss paediatric oncology care providers, and to explore their perceptions of barriers to and facilitators of cross-culturally competent care. DESIGN AND SAMPLE: We conducted a cross-sectional study. The data collection period was three weeks. Providers were recruited through collaborators at the participating paediatric oncology centres. All occupational groups who are in direct contact with patients and involved in their care were eligible (e.g., physicians, nurses, social workers, occupational therapists and physiotherapists). Surveying providers online, we captured five subscales of their cross-cultural competence and their perceptions as to how to facilitate cross-culturally competent paediatric oncology care. We employed the Cross-Cultural Competence of Healthcare Professionals (CCCHP) questionnaire. Besides descriptive and inferential statistics, we performed content analysis. FINDINGS: The response rate was 73.2% (n = 183/250). Analyses revealed differences in cross-cultural competence between occupational groups of paediatric oncology providers. Overall, social workers' cross-cultural competence was higher than nurses' or occupational therapists' and physiotherapists' cross-cultural competence. Physicians' cross-cultural competence was higher than nurses (with no statistically significant difference identified between physicians, occupational therapists and physiotherapists). Furthermore, our results suggest noteworthy differences among the four main occupational groups on the five CCCHP subscales. Physicians and social workers declared more positive attitudes than nurses; occupational therapists and physiotherapists reported lower skills than the other three groups; social workers scored higher on the emotions and empathy subscale than the other three groups; physicians were more knowledgeable and aware than nurses. Most frequently mentioned barriers were: language barriers (68.5%), different culture and values (19.2%), different illness understanding (9.2%). Most frequently mentioned facilitators were: professional translators (47.2%), continuous training (20.8%), professional cultural mediators (8.8%). CONCLUSIONS/IMPLICATIONS: Trainings and interventions are widely considered a principal strategy to advance providers' cross-cultural competence. Our findings of differences in cross-cultural competence among occupational groups further underpin the need to adapt training programmes and interventions to the respective occupational group and the respective dimension(s) of cross-cultural competence. In addition, professional translators and cultural mediators should be used. Lastly, reciprocal supervision and the promotion of multidisciplinary teams is crucial to enable oncology care providers to learn from each other and this exchange could also help to reduce some of the differences between the various occupational groups.
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 machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,002 | 0,005 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,003 | 0,000 |
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.
score_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 découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».