Cultural immersion in the education of healthcare professionals: a systematic review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: With the ever-changing cultural makeup of society, the ability to deliver culturally appropriate healthcare is essential. One educational method aimed at increasing cultural knowledge and sensitivity in the education of healthcare professionals is cultural immersion. Cultural immersion creates opportunity for transformational learning through direct interaction with culturally diverse populations. The purpose of this systematic review is to examine the qualitative effects of cultural immersion experiences on graduate-level healthcare professional students. METHODS: A search of the CINAHL and ERIC databases was performed utilizing search terms including cultural immersion, cultural sensitivity, educational outcomes, and healthcare professionals limited to publication within the last 10 years. The articles were screened according to title, abstract, and full-text following application of inclusion/exclusion criteria. Themes identified within each article were collected and categorized, using qualitative methodology, into five overarching domains to assess the educational experiences. Studies were scored for quality using the qualitative portion of the McGill Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool - 2011. RESULTS: Nine studies incorporating a total of 94 participants with experiences in 14 different culturally diverse environments revealing 47 individually identified themes were included in the review. Results indicated that all cultural immersion experiences stimulated increased cultural awareness and sensitivity. DISCUSSION: Cultural immersion experiences produced a positive, multi-domain effect on cultural learning in students of the health professionals. Results support a basis for implementation of cultural immersion experiences into the education of healthcare professionals with the goal of increasing cultural sensitivity.
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 | 0.009 | 0.046 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.010 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| 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".