Cultural Humility in Nursing: A Scoping Review of the Research Protocol
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Improving healthcare provider-healthcare recipient relationships, including how healthcare providers connect across differences with others, may improve healthcare and health equity (Lekas et al., 2020). Cultural humility is “the recognition of diversity and power imbalances among individuals, groups, or communities, with the actions of being open, self-aware, egoless, flexible, exuding respect and supportive interactions, focusing on both self and other to formulate a tailored response” (Foronda et al., 2025, p. 1-2). Although cultural humility for healthcare providers was introduced in the 1990s (Tervalon & Murray-García, 1998), it has recently gained popularity. The number of publications on cultural humility in health sciences databases such as PubMed has surged since 2015 (PubMed, 2025). This body of literature is largely predicated on the need for a paradigm shift from what traditionally has been cultural competence to cultural humility. Cultural competence treats culture as a technical skill that can be mastered by healthcare providers; not only is this unattainable, but it also leads to stereotyping and bias (Lekas et al., 2020). Additionally, cultural competency fails to address systemic drivers of health inequities (Lekas et al., 2020). Thus, cultural humility is viewed as a better fit than cultural competency towards health equity goals (First Nations Health Authority, 2018; Lekas et al., 2020; National Academy of Sciences, 2021). Nurses are the largest group of front-line healthcare providers. Enhancing cultural humility of nurses may play an important role in improving healthcare and health outcomes. Cultural humility is already being endorsed as a suitable goal for nurses (Canadian Council of Registered Nurse Regulators, 2018; Foronda, 2016; National Academy of Sciences et al., 2021). However, scientific evidence supporting the teaching and practice of cultural humility in nursing is in its infancy. To map existing research on cultural humility in nursing as an emerging topic, and to identify existing knowledge gaps to inform future research priorities, a scoping review will be undertaken (Peters et al., 2024). A traditional systematic review would be premature because at this point it is unclear what other more specific and valuable questions can be posed for evidence syntheses (Peters et al., 2024). According to a preliminary search of several health sciences databases and Google Scholar, no scoping reviews published on cultural humility in nursing were found. One scoping review protocol on the topic of cultural humility across a variety of disciplines including health disciplines has been registered (Farahani et al., 2025); however, the protocol does not address nursing specifically or the intention to inform nursing research priorities. The objective of this scoping review is to find and describe the existing body of empirical literature about cultural humility in nursing and identify gaps in the literature to inform future research.
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 | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,001 | 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 ».