Shared Decision Making with Aboriginal Women Facing Health Decisions: A qualitative study identifying needs, supports, and barriers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Shared decision making (SDM) may narrow health equity gaps by engaging clients with their health care providers in decision making; little is known about SDM interventions with Aboriginal people. This study describes the health decision-making experiences of Aboriginal women by identifying decision needs, supports, and barriers. An interpretive descriptive qualitative study was conducted from January to June 2013 with an advisory group using a mutually developed ethical framework, participatory research principles, and postcolonial theory. Aboriginal women at Minwaashin Lodge were interviewed in semi-structured interviews and transcripts were coded using thematic analysis. Participants were 13 women between 20 and 70 years of age, and of Inuit, Métis, or First Nations descent. SDM needs and supports are represented by themes focused on relational features of SDM, and presented in a Medicine Wheel framework. Findings indicate that to be relevant for Aboriginal women, SDM tools and approaches may need to be adapted, and participatory approaches must be used.
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 | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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".