Traditional Anishinabe Healing in a Clinical Setting: The Development of an Aboriginal Interdisciplinary Approach to Community-based Aboriginal Mental Health Care
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Traditional medicine has been practiced by Aboriginal people for thousands of years at the community level. It is still practiced today outside of the mainstream health system by many Aboriginal people. However, providing this type of care in a clinical, health centre setting and in co-operation with western treatment methods is new, and requires a merging of traditional Aboriginal and western medical world views in order to develop protocols for service delivery that ensure the integrity of both systems. The groundwork required to ensure the safety of clients, providers, and organizations within the new integrated system is still largely undocumented. To address this gap, we studied factors that support the successful integration of traditional Aboriginal healing and western mental health care approaches, and document the experiences of clients and providers. To accomplish this we contextualize 10 years of experience of traditional healing services development with in-depth interviews and focus groups with 17 community service providers and 23 clients. We found that the development of traditional healing protocols, inter-professional education for providers and community members and a focus on client access to traditional Anishinabe health services provide the basis for the integration of western and traditional healing practices in the model under study. Our findings show integrated care resulted in positive experiences for clients and providers. We conclude that traditional healing approaches can be successfully integrated with clinical mental health services. Further research is necessary to improve our understanding of client experiences with this integrated approach and the impact on wholistic health and well-being.
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 | 0.010 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.012 | 0.012 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 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".