Women-Centered and Culturally Responsive Heart Health Promotion Among Indigenous Women in Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Most women in Canada confront a combination of bio-psychosocial factors that put them at risk for cardiovascular disease. The challenge for health planners is to address these factors while contextualizing interventions that meet the specific needs of particular social and cultural groupings. The article will discuss a women-centered, group-based heart health pilot initiative designed to engage with indigenous approaches to healing. The nurse practitioners co-led the group with a representative from the indigenous community to balance women-centered practices with more traditional and culturally appropriate ones. In particular, indigenous processes, such as a Talking Circle, combined with indigenous knowledge/content were integrated into the pilot program. The project was evaluated to investigate its outcomes (how the intervention impacted the participants) and processes (how participants perceived the intervention). Evaluation involved analysis of the Talking Circle's content, a focus group, field observations, and self-completed surveys. Most women made changes regarding their diet, some began physical activities, and others focused on better managing their emotional health. Women viewed the group as successful because it embraced both women-centered and culturally appropriate health promotion practices. The intervention created a culturally safe space for learning and transformation. The findings confirm the need for employing culturally relevant, gender-specific approaches to heart health promotion that are situated in and responsive to community needs.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.013 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".