The journey of aftercare for Australia’s First Nations families whose child had sustained a burn injury: a qualitative study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Access to ongoing multidisciplinary healthcare services for children who have sustained a burn injury is critical for optimal recovery. This paper reports on barriers and facilitators to culturally safe and appropriate burn aftercare for Australia's First Nations children. The voices of First Nations families whose child had sustained a serious burn are central to this paper. METHODS: Eighteen families, which consisted of 59 family members, of children younger than 16 years who had sustained a burn injury were asked to describe their own journey in accessing appropriate burn aftercare. Interviews were conducted in the families' homes using yarning (dialogue) and Dadirri (deep listening) as Indigenous research methods. Data was gathered in South Australia, the Northern Territory, Queensland and New South Wales, Australia. Using a cyclic process, transcripts and emerging themes were sent back to participants, and a collaborative approach was used to conduct the final analysis. RESULTS: Lack of culturally safe communication between service providers and family members, in addition to institutionalised racism, were found to be the major barriers to accessing healthcare services. Distance to medical treatment also impacted children's access to aftercare. Involvement of First Nations Health Workers and/or Liaison Officers working with health providers, the child and family members, was found to be an important facilitator in reducing miscommunication and alleviating fear and anxiety in the children and families. CONCLUSION: There are significant barriers to access to aftercare following a serious burn including miscommunication, lack of cultural safety, distance to medical treatment and racism. However, these can be largely mitigated when First Nations families have input into the care received and the care needed for ongoing burn care to be effective and are supported by First Nations Health/Liaison Officers support.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".