MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3091140497 · doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2020-038168

Conceptualising cultural safety at an Indigenous-focused midwifery practice in Toronto, Canada: qualitative interviews with Indigenous and non-Indigenous clients

2020· article· en· W3091140497 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Mackenzie Elaine Churchill, Janet Smylie, Sara H Wolfe, Cheryllee Bourgeois, Helle Moeller, Michelle Firestone

Bibliographic record

VenueBMJ Open · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicIndigenous Health, Education, and Rights
Canadian institutionsLakehead UniversityPublic Health OntarioUniversity of TorontoSt. Michael's Hospital
FundersOntario Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care
KeywordsIndigenousCultural safetyFeelingMedicineQualitative researchTraditional knowledgeNursingSociologyPsychologySocial psychologySocial science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: Cultural safety is an Indigenous concept that can improve how healthcare services are delivered to both Indigenous and non-Indigenous peoples in Canada. This study explored how Indigenous and non-Indigenous clients at an urban, Indigenous-focused midwifery practice in Toronto, Canada (Seventh Generation Midwives Toronto, SGMT) conceptualised and experienced culturally safe care. DESIGN AND SETTING: Interviews were conducted with former clients of SGMT as a part of a larger evaluation of the practice. Participants were purposefully recruited. Interviews were transcribed and analysed thematically using an iterative, consensus-based approach and a critical, naturalistic, and decolonising lens. PARTICIPANTS: Saturation was reached after 20 interviews (n=9 Indigenous participants, n=11 non-Indigenous participants). RESULTS: Three domains of cultural safety emerged. Each domain included several themes: Relationships and Communication (respect and support for choices; personalised and continuous relationships with midwives; and being different from past experiences); Sharing Knowledge and Practice (feeling informed about the basics of pregnancy, birth, and the postpartum period; and having access to Indigenous knowledge and protocols), and Culturally Safe Spaces (feeling at home in practice; and having relationships interconnected with the physical space). While some ideas were shared across groups, the distinctions between the Indigenous and non-Indigenous participants were prominent. CONCLUSION: The Indigenous participants conceptualised cultural safety in ways that highlight the survival and resurgence of Indigenous values, understandings, and approaches in cities like Toronto, and affirm the need for Indigenous midwives. The non-Indigenous participants conceptualised cultural safety with both congruence, illuminating Black-Indigenous community solidarities in cultural safety, and divergence, demonstrating the potential of Indigenous spaces and Indigenous-focused midwifery care to also benefit midwifery clients of white European descent. We hope that the positive impacts documented here motivate evaluators and healthcare providers to work towards a future where 'cultural safety' becomes a standard of care.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.071
Threshold uncertainty score0.517

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.003
Science and technology studies0.0250.016
Scholarly communication0.0050.002
Open science0.0030.006
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.078
GPT teacher head0.450
Teacher spread0.372 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations64
Published2020
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBMJ OpenSame topicIndigenous Health, Education, and RightsFrench-language works237,207