Doing gender inclusive and affirmingr practices in undergraduate nursing education: Preliminary findings from a scoping review
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Health care professionals are required by their codes of ethics to provide equitable care for all (1–4). Often, historically, persistently, and systematically marginalized groups are denied equitable health care (5). One contributing factor is inadequate health professional education concerning equity and social accountability (6). While health professional education has improved its formal curricula regarding health equity, the informal (relationships and interactions) and hidden curricula (the culture and values of a profession and/or institution) are lesser known (7,8). Preliminary findings from a scoping review (n=40), being conducted as part of my thesis work, shows that most efforts to advance gender inclusive and affirming (GIA) nursing education are in the formal curricula, with minimal efforts to address the informal and much less so the hidden curricula. GIA practices, like gender-affirming care, benefit people of all genders, however, GIA practices go a step further to create GIA spaces that transcend health care into all spaces (9,10). As such, our scoping review is mapping GIA practices across the curriculum within nursing schools in Canada and the USA (11). The proposed poster will outline initial findings of how schools are doing GIA practices in undergraduate nursing education, including outlining gaps and recommendations. FGS attendees who visit this poster will be invited to engage in a dialogue about what GIA health care means to them and how they want to see GIA enacted in health care professional education and health care practices. References 1. Canadian Medical Association. CMA Code of Ethics and Professionalism. Can Med Assoc [Internet]. 2018;1–6. Available from: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20311772%0Ahttp://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=PMC1930662 2. Canadian Nurses Association. Code of ethics for registered nurses. 2017; Available from: www.nanb.nb.ca/media/resource/Code_of_Ethics-2017-E.pdf 3. Canadian Physiotherapy Association. Code of ethical conduct [Internet]. 2020 p. 1. Available from: https://physiotherapy.ca/cpa-code-ethics 4. Canadian Dental Association. CDA principles of ethics [Internet]. 2015. Available from: https://www.cda-adc.ca/en/about/ethics/ 5. McGibbon E, editor. Oppression: A social determinant of health. 2nd ed. Fernwood Publishing; 2021. 6. Ventres W, Boelen C, Haq C. Time for action: key considerations for implementing social accountability in the education of health professionals. Adv Health Sci Educ [Internet]. 2018 Oct [cited 2023 Sep 19];23(4):853–62. Available from: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s10459-017-9792-z 7. Raso A, Marchetti A, D’Angelo D, Albanesi B, Garrino L, Dimonte V, et al. The hidden curriculum in nursing education: a scoping study. Med Educ [Internet]. 2019 [cited 2023 Jan 27];53(10):989–1002. Available from: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/medu.13911 8. Hafferty FW. Beyond curriculum reform: Confronting medicine’s hidden curriculum. Acad Med [Internet]. 1998;73(4):403–7. Available from: https://oce-ovid-com.uml.idm.oclc.org/article/00001888-199804000-00013/HTML 9. Rivera D. Care without assumption: the perceptions of transgender persons regarding their experiences with nursing care. Int J Hum Caring [Internet]. 2019 Jul [cited 2022 Nov 20];23(3):242–53. Available from: http://uml.idm.oclc.org/login?url=https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=c8h&AN=139213252&site=ehost-live 10. Soled KRS, Clark KD, Altman MR, Bosse JD, Thompson RA, Squires A, et al. Changing language, changes lives: Learning the lexicon of LGBTQ+ health equity. Res Nurs Health [Internet]. 2022 [cited 2023 Feb 7];45(6):621–32. Available from: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/nur.22274 11. Crawford J, Schultz ASH, Linton J, Kramer M, Ristock J. Gender-affirming care in undergraduate nursing education: a scoping review protocol. BMJ Open [Internet]. 2023;13(3):e070576. Available from: https://www.scopus.com/inward/record.uri?eid=2-s2.0-85150263559&doi=10.1136%2fbmjopen-2022-070576&partnerID=40&md5=95d1b466e7f84e3dc1051f2728a03d32
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 | 0,099 | 0,207 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,003 | 0,005 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,023 | 0,031 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,002 | 0,003 |
| Communication savante | 0,007 | 0,007 |
| Science ouverte | 0,002 | 0,008 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,003 | 0,002 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,004 | 0,001 |
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 ».