Activité réflexive novatrice auprès d’étudiantes en sciences infirmières sur la diversité culturelle dans les soins
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Context: The development of nursing students’ cultural competency is recognized as a way to promote culturally sensitive care and to reduce health care disparities (AIIC, 2010; Blanchet Garneau, 2013). Purpose: In this paper, we present the development and implementation of a reflective activity aiming to promote students’ reflection on the different realities of nursing practice in a culturally diverse context. Method: A Master’s student in Nursing developed the reflective activity in collaboration with three academics who specialize in nursing education. The Blanchet Garneau (2013) model of cultural competence development and key writings on reflective practice in nursing guided the conception of the reflective activity. The participants were invited to discuss clinical situations they had experienced with someone whose values or beliefs differed from their own. The activity was tested with two groups of five and one group of two nursing students (n=12). After completing the activity, they filled out a survey about their perceived learning and their appreciation of the activity. Results: The reflective questions helped the students discuss some of the components of Blanchet Garneau’s model. The activity allowed students to appreciate the importance of considering their patients’ values and beliefs in their care. Some of them also reported becoming aware of their power, as nurses, in reducing health care disparities. Conclusion: Reflective practice seems to be a promising strategy to guide the development of nursing students’ cultural competency. Nursing educators in both clinical and educational settings could use this reflective activity. Key words : cultural competency, reflective practice, nursing education, experiential learning, health care disparities.
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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".