THE INTERFACE BETWEEN CULTURE AND CARE IN INDIGENOUS HEALTH: A SCOPING REVIEW
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Indigenous health care is a unique area of care. In Brazil and in other regions of the world, such as Canada and Africa, the ways in which indigenous people are cared for are based on different values directly linked to nature and religion. However, many indigenous health care practices are based on a biomedical approach to problems, with a focus on the biological body (Ribeiro et al, 2017). From this perspective, we highlight the need to guarantee universal, integrated, appropriate and comprehensive public health services, as well as culturally appropriate care actions, respecting sociocultural specificities and rights. These practices must be based on the articulation with traditional indigenous health knowledge and practices through the introduction of new concepts in public policies, the transformation of the organizational forms of care models and the definition of new care practices. Nevertheless, indigenous people continue to be considered one of the most vulnerable population groups globally (Pedrana et al, 2018). That said, particularly in the case of indigenous people, preconceptions and stereotypes can have a negative influence on the attitudes of the health team during care. This makes it necessary for the caregiver to understand illness as a sociocultural process and to consider the experiences of the people being cared for (Ribeiro, Fortuna, Arantes, 2015). However, health professionals often fail to consider the knowledge and conceptions, different from those established by biomedicine, inherent in indigenous ways of looking at life, thus leading to the need to relativize their view of care. Unique health care for indigenous people can be positively impacted by the ability of workers to build a relativized/intercultural gaze, provided by the social space of care that allows them to get to know and value the knowledge and values of users (Ribeiro et al, 2017). Thus, care for the indigenous population requires intercultural communication and interaction processes that need to be studied and understood with a focus on different perspectives (Ribeiro et al, 2017; Ribeiro, Fortuna, Arantes, 2015). These considerations are important for health professionals given the role they play in preventing illness, promoting health, treatment and rehabilitation of the indigenous population. In addition, in the current context of vulnerabilities, health professionals need to be aware of and practice cultural care, based on systematic production of health issues that take into account ethnic-racial aspects, particularly concerning indigenous peoples To this end, it is imperative to analyze the care provided to indigenous peoples taking cultural aspects into account, so that this aspect can be widely disseminated and used in health disciplines, contributing to the clarification of concepts, as it is believed that concepts are continually modified through the observations learned and reflected on in the practice of health professionals. OBJECTIVE To map the scientific evidence on care for indigenous peoples, taking cultural aspects into account
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 | 0,012 | 0,051 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,003 | 0,003 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,012 | 0,014 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,002 | 0,003 |
| Communication savante | 0,006 | 0,005 |
| Science ouverte | 0,002 | 0,004 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,003 | 0,003 |
| 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 ».