Toward Cultural Safety
Bibliographic record
Abstract
As a group, people who use illicit drugs and are affected by social disadvantages often experience health inequities and encounter barriers such as stigma and discrimination when accessing health care services. Cultural safety has been proposed as one approach to address health inequities and mitigate stigma in health care. Drawing on a qualitative ethnographic approach within an overarching collaborative framework, we sought to gain an understanding of what constitutes culturally safe care for people who use(d) illicit drugs. The findings illustrate that illicit substance use in hospitals is often negatively constructed as (1) an individual failing, (2) a criminal activity, and (3) a disease of "addiction" with negative impacts on access to care, management of pain, and provision of harm-reduction supplies and services. These constructions of illicit substance use impact patients' feelings of safety in hospital and nurses' capacity to provide culturally safe care. On the basis of these findings, we provide recommendations and guidance for the development of culturally safe nursing practice.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.030 | 0.030 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.019 | 0.048 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.017 | 0.012 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.035 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.014 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".