Intercultural communication in health care: challenges and solutions in work rehabilitation practices and training: a comprehensive review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: The purpose of this comprehensive literature review it to explore cross-cultural issues in occupational rehabilitation and work disability prevention. METHOD: A literature review on cross-cultural issues was performed in medicine, health sciences, and social sciences databases (PubMed, Ingenta, Canadian Centre for Occupational Health and Safety, Ergonomics Abstract, Google Scholar, OSH Update and the Quebec Workers' Compensation Board data base). A total of 27 documents published until 2010 in English or French were selected and analyzed. RESULTS: Cross-cultural issues in occupational rehabilitation show that representations of pain, communication and therapist-patient relationship and intercultural competence could be presented as the major topics covered in the selected literature. As for the general topic of immigrant workers and OSH, barriers were identified revealing personal, relational, contextual and structural levels that put immigrant and minority workers in situation of vulnerability (ex. linguistic and cultural barriers, lack of knowledge of the system, precarious work or exposition to higher risk hazards, etc.). Cultural issues in occupational rehabilitation put less attention to work-related contextual factors but emphasized on attitude and pain behaviours, perceptions of illness and appropriate treatment, therapist-patient relationship and cultural competences among OT professionals. CONCLUSIONS: The growth of immigration in countries such as Canada poses a real challenge to the delivery of health care and rehabilitation services. Despite growing concerns in providing culturally appropriate heath cares, intervention models, tools and training tools are still lacking in occupational rehabilitation and disability management. Nevertheless, cultural competence seems to be a promising concept to be implemented in work rehabilitation and disability management.
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 | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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".