Indigenous Cultural Safety Training for Applied Health, Social Work and Education Professionals: A PRISMA Scoping Review
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
ABSTRACT Background Anti-Indigenous racism is a widespread social problem in health, social work, and education systems in English-speaking Colonized countries such as Canada, with profound negative impacts to the health and education of Indigenous peoples. In 2015, Canada’s Truth and Reconciliation Commission recognized the legacy and impact of Colonization and recommended training programs for these professions on cultural competency and curricula, and on the colonial history of Canada. Yet there is little evidence on best practices for such training, highlighting the need to synthesize existing findings on how these training programs are developed, implemented, and evaluated. Methods This scoping review explored the academic literature on Indigenous cultural safety and competence training in the health, social work, and education fields. Medline, EMBASE, CINAHL, ERIC and ASSIA were searched for articles published between 1996-2020 in Canada, United States, Australia, and New Zealand. The Joanna Briggs Institute’s three-step search strategy was used as was the PRISMA extension for Scoping Reviews. Data was charted and synthesized in three stages. Results 134 were included in this review. Data was extracted on four themes: 1) Article Characteristic; 2) Cultural Safety Concepts, Critiques and Rationale; 3) Characteristics of Cultural Safety Training; and 4) Evaluation Details of Cultural Safety Training. Findings suggest that research on cultural safety training programs in health, social work and education has grown significantly. Nursing and medicine professions have received a significant proportion of cultural training programs, compared with general/allied health, social work, and education. Across fields, professionals and students were targeted equally by training programs. Only half of evaluations of cultural safety and related intervention identified methodological limitations. Implications Considering, comparing, and contrasting literature on cultural safety and related concepts and how they are applied in practice would advance this scholarly work, as would more robust evaluations of cultural safety and similar training interventions to understand their impact at the individual level. Finally, commitment to meaningfully engage Indigenous communities to develop, implement and evaluate such programs is urgently needed.
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 enseignantsNi 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.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,003 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,005 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 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 tête enseignante, 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 ».