Barriers and facilitators to cultural competence in rehabilitation services: a scoping review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: There is an important need to evaluate whether rehabilitation services effectively address the needs of minority culture populations with North America's increasingly diverse population. The objective of this paper was therefore to review and assess the state of knowledge of barriers and facilitators to cultural competence in rehabilitation services. METHOD: Our scoping review focused on cultural competence in rehabilitation services. Rehabilitation services included in this review were: audiology, speech-language pathology, physiotherapy, and occupational therapy. A search strategy was developed to identify relevant articles published from inception of databases until April 2015. Titles and abstracts were screened by two independent reviewers according to specific eligibility criteria with the use of a liberal-accelerated approach. Full-text articles meeting inclusion criteria were then screened. Key study characteristics were abstracted by the first reviewer, and findings were verified by the second reviewer. RESULTS: After duplicates were removed, 4303 citations were screened. Included articles suggest that studies on cultural competence occur most frequently in occupational therapy (n = 17), followed by speech language pathology (n = 11), physiotherapy (n = 6), and finally audiology (n = 1). Primary barriers in rehabilitation services include language barriers, limited resources, and cultural barriers. Primary facilitators include cultural awareness amongst practitioners, cultural awareness in services, and explanations of health care systems. CONCLUSION: To our knowledge, this review is the first to summarize barriers and facilitators to cultural competence in rehabilitation fields. Insufficient studies were found to draw any conclusions with regards to audiological services. Minimal perspectives based on patient/caregiver experiences in all rehabilitation fields underscore a research gap. Future studies should aim to explore both patient/caregiver and practitioner perspectives as such data can help inform culturally competent practices.
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 | 0.058 | 0.219 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.025 | 0.022 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| 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".