Indigenous mothers' experiences of using acute care health services for their infants
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIMS AND OBJECTIVES: To develop an understanding of how Indigenous mothers experience selecting and using health services for their infants can assist nurses in improving their access to care. This understanding may ultimately lead to improved health outcomes for Indigenous infants and their families. BACKGROUND: Access to acute care services is important to minimise morbidity and mortality from urgent health issues; however, Indigenous people describe difficulties accessing care. Indigenous infants are known to use the emergency department frequently, yet little is known about the facilitators and barriers their mothers experience when accessing these services. DESIGN: This study undertook a qualitative, interpretive description design. METHODS: This article adheres to the reporting guidelines of COREQ. Data collection methods included interviews and a discussion group with Indigenous mothers (n = 19). Data analysis was collaborative and incorporated both Indigenous and Western ways of knowing, through the application of Two-Eyed Seeing. RESULTS: A thematic summary resulted in six themes: (a) problematic wait times; (b) the hidden costs of acute care; (c) paediatric care; (d) trusting relationships; (e) racism and discrimination; and (f) holistic care. CONCLUSIONS: The experiences of Indigenous mothers using acute care services for their infants suggest a role for culturally safe and trauma and violence-informed care by health providers in the acute care context. RELEVANCE TO CLINICAL PRACTICE: Nurses can improve access to acute care services for Indigenous mothers and infants through the provision of culturally safe and trauma and violence-informed approaches care, by building rapport with families, providing care that is respectful and nonjudgemental, eliminating fees associated with using acute care services and linking families with cultural resources both in hospital and within the community.
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 | 0.004 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".