Understanding and responding to racism and the provision of culturally safe care by interdisciplinary health professionals in the aged care sector in regional, rural and remote areas: a scoping review
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
INTRODUCTION: This scoping review was undertaken to obtain conceptual clarification about how racism and cultural safety are understood by interdisciplinary health professionals globally in the aged care sector in regional, rural and remote areas. There is evidence in Australia and internationally that racism is a factor impacting significantly on the health of First Peoples and other racialised minorities. Recent policy changes in Australia have required health professionals to integrate cultural safety into their practice to mitigate racism and improve the health of older First Nations Australians and older people from diverse ethnic and cultural groups. METHODS: This review consisted of literature published in English from 1990, including published primary studies; systematic, integrative and narrative reviews; meta-analyses; theses; policy documents; guidelines; position statements; and government literature. Ovid (MEDLINE), CINAHL Plus with Full Text, Scopus, Proquest Nursing and Allied Health Database, and Informit were used in the full search. The most recent search of all databases was undertaken on 9 May 2022. Ten papers were included in the review, following the exclusion of 376 papers. A title and abstract search of the reference lists of papers included in the review identified no additional papers. RESULTS: Ten papers were included in the review from Australia, Canada, the US, Norway and England. The literature reviewed suggests that health professionals in the aged care sector in regional, rural and remote areas in Australia, Canada, the US, Norway and England use alternative terms to 'racism' and 'racist', such as 'institutional marginalisation'. DISCUSSION: The absence of explicit reference to racism aligns with critical race research that argues implicit bias and institutional racism are often separated from an individualised understanding of racism. That is, practitioners may understand racism as something that is perpetrated by individuals in an otherwise 'neutral' health setting. There is also a lack of clarity on how culturally safe care is understood, even though individual care plans are viewed as instrumental in establishing the needs and preferences of the consumers. Within the literature surveyed, barriers to providing quality and culturally inclusive care include disengaged management, insufficient human and material resources, language barriers and a lack of education focused on the needs of older individuals and groups with various cultural and spiritual needs. Additionally, the review does not clearly illuminate what health professionals understand to be racist thinking or behaviour and how it is responded to in practice. Likewise, there is limited information about health professionals' understanding of cultural safety and how to provide culturally inclusive care. CONCLUSION: While work is beginning on developing standards for cultural safety training in an Australian context, there are also opportunities to consider how these should be applied or adapted to residential and community aged care to best meet the needs of a diverse consumer base and workforce.
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 | 0,019 | 0,081 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,004 | 0,004 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,012 | 0,012 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,002 | 0,002 |
| Communication savante | 0,007 | 0,005 |
| Science ouverte | 0,002 | 0,003 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,004 | 0,002 |
| 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 ».