Competence trust among providers as fundamental to a culturally competent primary healthcare system for immigrant families
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIM: To explore how an organization's trust in the cultural competency of other service providers (competence trust) can influence the effectiveness of a services network in meeting the needs of recent immigrant families. BACKGROUND: Primary health care for recent immigrants arriving in Canada is delivered through a network of community-based services. To ensure the functioning of the network and its ability to facilitate access to needed services for new arrivals, network members need to be able to work together collaboratively. A case study involving services for an urban community in Atlantic Canada was undertaken in 2009 to explore how service organizations worked together to address the needs of recent immigrant families with young children. This paper focuses on provider perceptions of cultural competency among local service organizations and how this influenced trust and desire to work together for the benefit of families. METHODS: The case study utilized both social network analysis and qualitative inquiry methodology. Twenty-one of 27 selected organizations responded to the online social network survey, and 14 key informant interviews were conducted. Social network measures and network mapping were used to demonstrate trusting relationships and associated interactions, while interview data were used to explain the relationships observed. FINDINGS: Perceived cultural competency affected the degree of trust and collaboration within the services network when addressing the needs of recent immigrant families. Competence trust toward other providers increased the desire and commitment to work together, while lack of competence trust created avoidance. Non-government organizations were identified among the most culturally competent. The perceived positive and negative experiences of families with different providers influenced the level of trust among network members. The development of systemic cultural competences within a services network is needed in order to improve collaborations and access to services for immigrant families.
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 | 0.005 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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".