“All my relations”: experiences and perceptions of Indigenous patients connecting with Indigenous Elders in an inner city primary care partnership for mental health and well-being
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Mental health services in urban settings generally have not been adapted to serve the needs of Indigenous patients. We explored how patients' encounters with Indigenous Elders affected their overall mental health and well-being to identify therapeutic mechanisms underlying improvement. METHODS: We conducted qualitative interviews of participants enrolled in a 6-month prospective mixed-methods evaluation of a program for mental health and well-being that featured the inclusion of Elders in the direct care of Indigenous patients in an inner city primary care clinic. Individual semistructured interviews were conducted to explore patients' experiences and perceptions of their participation in the Elders program. RESULTS: We included 37 participants from at least 20 different First Nations. All but 1 participant described substantial benefits from their encounters with Elders, and none reported being negatively affected. Five overarching themes were identified: experiencing healing after prolonged periods of seeking and desperation; strengthening cultural identity and belonging; developing trust and opening up; coping with losses; and engaging in ceremony and spiritual dimensions of care as a resource for hope. INTERPRETATION: Our evaluation illustrates that the Elders program was perceived by participants to have a broad range of positive impacts on their care and well-being. Although this study was based on experiences at a single urban clinic, these findings support the Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada's calls to action regarding the inclusion of Elders as a strategy to improve care of Indigenous patients in Canadian health care systems.
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 | 0.005 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.020 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| 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".