The Need for Cultural Safety in Injury Prevention
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Public health nurses are on the front line of injury prevention initiatives. However, within injury prevention interventions and research, issues pertaining to culture are often addressed through the employment of one of the three approaches: cultural competency, cultural appropriateness, and/or cultural sensitivity. When using these approaches, it is often suggested that it is only those who are the recipients of an intervention or the focus of research that "have" culture. The injury prevention designer's/provider's/researcher's own culture, as well as the ways in which it may influence the interventions or research, is typically rendered invisible. In this paper, we provide an overview and illustrations of the use of cultural competency, cultural appropriateness, and cultural sensitivity in injury prevention initiatives, as well as each approach's shortcomings. We then introduce cultural safety, an approach that has not yet gained traction in injury prevention but has had significant uptake within nursing in general, and argue that it has the potential to overcome many other approaches' shortcomings and thus may lead to more effective and socially just injury prevention initiatives.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.011 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".