Examination of cultural competence in service providers in an early intervention programme for psychosis in Montreal, Quebec: Perspectives of service users and treatment providers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIM: To better understand cultural competence in early intervention for psychosis, we compared service users' and service providers' perceptions of the importance of providers being culturally competent and attentive to aspects of culture. METHODS: At a Canadian early intervention programme, a validated scale was adapted to assess service user (N = 51) and provider (N = 30) perceptions of service providers' cultural competence and the importance accorded thereto. RESULTS: Analyses of variance revealed that the importance of service providers being culturally competent was rated highest by service providers, followed by visible minority service users, followed by white service users. Providers rated themselves as being more interested in knowing about service users' culture than service users perceived them to be. CONCLUSIONS: Service users accorded less import to service providers' cultural competence than providers themselves, owing possibly to varied socialization. A mismatch in users' and providers' views on providers' efforts to know their users' cultures may influence mental healthcare outcomes.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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".