Cultural competency in clinical consultation at the Alberta Children's Hospital: how to deliver equitable, effective, and adequate health care to minority people
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The need to provide culturally competent health care and social service has become a major concern for social workers, health professionals, and researchers. Many researchers suggest ways to implement culturally competent programs and services, such as diversity training for staff, the building of cordial relations with the communities around the service centers, implementing culturally responsive service policies, and hiring from the communities to create a workforce that reflects the diversity of service users. Others advocate the need to introduce programs such as interpretation service to eliminate language barriers. They also emphasize the development of practice guidelines which should include self-assessment, enquiry about a client's cultural background, and the need to acquire cultural knowledge. Although, the above suggestions see the need for changes in the traditional way of providing health care and social service, there has been little examination of the link between culture, illness, and healing. It shows that many practitioners do not see the importance of implementing culturally competent services and programs within the health care and social service settings. Further, much of the current debates on cultural competence focus on services and programs provided by mental health practitioners and nurses, but very little research has been conducted from a social work perspective. The Child and Women's Diversity Program at the Alberta Children's Hospital tries to correct these deficiencies in cultural competence by providing a cultural based consultation to social workers, physicians, and psychologists. --P. i.
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 | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
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".