An examination of clinicians’ experiences of collaborative culturally competent service delivery to immigrant families raising a child with a physical disability
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: Although collaborative, culturally competent care has been shown to increase positive health outcomes and client satisfaction with services, little is known about the ways that clinicians implement service delivery models with immigrant families having a child with a disability. The purpose of this study is to examine the experiences of clinicians working with immigrant families raising a child with a physical disability and to examine the views and experiences of clinicians providing collaborative, culturally competent care to immigrant families raising a child with a physical disability. METHOD: This study draws on in-depth interviews with 43 clinicians within two pediatric centers in Toronto and Quebec. RESULTS: Our findings show that clinicians remove or create barriers for immigrant families in different ways, which affect their ability to provide culturally competent care for immigrant families raising a child with a physical disability. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings suggest that there is a need for more institutional support for collaborative, culturally competent care to immigrant families raising a child with a physical disability. There is a lack of formal processes in place to develop collaborative treatment plans and approaches that would benefit immigrant families. Implications for Rehabilitation Clinicians need greater institutional support and resources to spend more time with families and to provide more rehabilitative care in families' homes. Building rapport with families includes listening to and respecting families' views and experiences. Facilitate collaboration and culturally competent care by having team meetings with parents to formulate treatment plans.
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 | 0.008 | 0.024 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".