Exploring the Appropriateness of Culturally Safe Dementia Information with Indigenous People in an Urban Northern Ontario Community
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Ce projet en application de connaissances a exploré la pertinence d'une documentation en promotion de la santé élaborée pour une population autochtone nationale en vue de son utilisation dans une communauté autochtone urbaine du nord de l'Ontario. Une approche décolonisée et communautaire de recherche-action participative faisant appel à l'épistémologie tribale a été suivie pour former un groupe consultatif autochtone local et établir un partenariat avec le N'Swakamok Native Friendship Centre. Deux groupes de discussion (n=8) composés d'adultes autochtones et cinq entrevues individuelles avec des aidants autochtones soignant une personne atteinte de démence ont alimenté l'analyse thématique qualitative. Quatre thèmes sont ressortis des données: (1) la nécessité d'une compréhension commune des cultures autochtones et occidentales dans le cadre des soins de santé; (2) l'amélioration de la communication interculturelle dans les discussions sur la santé; (3) l'ancrage du matériel de promotion de la santé dans la culture, et (4) les stratégies autochtones de littératie en matière de santé et la sensibilisation aux maladies neurodégénératives. Considérant que les prestataires de soins de santé cherchent des moyens efficaces pour communiquer avec les peuples autochtones, il est important de fournir de l'information pertinente localement et sur le plan culturel afin d'améliorer l'adoption et l'efficacité chez ces populations. This knowledge translation project explored the appropriateness of utilizing health promotion materials developed for a national Indigenous population with Indigenous people living in a northern Ontario urban community. A de-colonized, community-based participatory action research approach using tribal epistemology assisted in establishing a local Indigenous advisory group and a partnership with the N’Swakamok Native Friendship Centre. Two focus groups (n = 8) with Indigenous adults and five one-on-one interviews with Indigenous caregivers of a person with dementia informed a qualitative thematic analysis. Four themes emerged from the data: (1) the need for shared understandings of Indigenous and Western cultures in health care; (2) improving cross-cultural communication within health-related encounters; (3) grounding health promotion materials in culture; and (4) Indigenous health literacy strategies for dementia awareness. As health care providers search for effective ways to communicate with Indigenous people, it is important to deliver locally and culturally relevant information to improve uptake and effectiveness by Indigenous people. Maanda enkiichigaadeg binda kenjigemgad gezhi nakaasang dibaajimowinan gaazhitoong giiwedinong anishinaabek endaajig nji. Enanchgwenzigwaa miinwaa N’swakamok Friendship Center maamwi giinaadmaadok nokiitmowaad wii maandonaa’aad waa nkwenmaagenjig. Niish we’aangizijig, kchi aak miinwaa enkiitaagejig gii nibwaachidook nenendamaawziwin nji wii rnkamwaad ge minodaapinigaadeg. Niiwin giibi zikaamgadoon ge naadmaagemgak. (1) Zhindawendaagwod nsastaadwin wiiteg Anishinaabe miinwaa Ewaabshkiiwed ezhi naagdawendiwaad; (2) Weweni wii ginoonding nokiitaageng; (3) Wii kinoomaading weweni dibaajimowinan waazhi giniwendizad bemaadzid; miinwaa (4) Anishinaabe ji nsastang enaabiisjigeng nenendamaawziwin nji. Epiichtaawaad bemiikgagejig wii mkamowaad gezhi ginoonaawaad Anishinaaben, kchi piitendaagwad weweni ji nsastamookiiwaad mii dash dani naawsek.
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 | 0.008 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.018 | 0.009 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".