MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2468075909 · doi:10.1017/cem.2016.209

P033: Engaging Indigenous patients in addressing cultural safety in an emergency department: a pilot initiative

2016· article· en· W2468075909 on OpenAlexaffabout
Evelyn Marion Dell, Michelle Firestone, Janet Smylie, Wanda Whitebird, Samuel Vaillancourt

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Emergency Medicine · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicInterpreting and Communication in Healthcare
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIndigenousEmergency departmentParticipatory action researchFocus groupSnowball samplingMedicinePopulationCommunity-based participatory researchInclusion (mineral)PhoneHealth careNursingFamily medicinePsychologyEnvironmental health

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduction: Cultural safety is integral to good clinical care, particularly for Indigenous patients. However, it remains poorly defined in emergency department care (ED). Practitioners at an urban Canadian ED serving a significant Indigenous population sought to engage with the community to define areas for improvement in culturally safe emergency department care. Methods: A participatory action approach was used. A Steering Committee was created, including emergency clinicians and Indigenous health researchers. The Committee collaborated with a local Indigenous health study (Our Health Counts) to aid recruitment. Relevant Indigenous community organizations were identified and engaged via email and personal visits. Recruitment posters were placed in common areas at community sites and the ED. Convenience and snowball sampling was used - potential participants called an ED research coordinator and inclusion criteria were confirmed (self identify as Indigenous, >18 years old, ED visit within the past year). Eligible participants were invited to attend a focus group facilitated by an Aboriginal Elder. Results: 31 individuals called to enroll for a total of 4 potential focus groups. 1 was successfully held: 5 participants were confirmed, 2 attended. Many recruitment challenges were identified, including difficulty maintaining contact/follow-up with a transient population, poster dissemination before recruitment start date, non-Indigenous patients attracted by compensation, and potential participant safety concerns regarding non-Indigenous contact point. Conclusion: Our initiative highlights challenges in engaging vulnerable populations in a large city. Focus groups may be logistically too challenging for this transient population. Other real-time data collection methods, such as phone interviews or surveys may be promising. An Indigenous contact point would likely improve perceived safety. The lack of socio-demographic data collection makes identifying potential participants challenging.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.019
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.014
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.987
Threshold uncertainty score0.099

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0190.014
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0080.003
Scholarly communication0.0020.003
Open science0.0040.008
Research integrity0.0040.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0110.002

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.

Opus teacher head0.286
GPT teacher head0.486
Teacher spread0.200 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2016
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Emergency MedicineSame topicInterpreting and Communication in HealthcareFrench-language works237,207