Indigenous peoples’ positive experiences of culturally safe health care: a qualitative systematic review protocol
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this systematic review is to explore what is known about Indigenous peoples' positive experiences with culturally safe health care. INTRODUCTION: Research indicates that Indigenous people often experience stigma and discrimination from non-Indigenous health care providers when accessing health care services. One approach that has been put forward to address Indigenous health inequities is cultural safety. Studies have been conducted to identify what comprises culturally safe care for Indigenous people, however, many of these studies target the health care provider's perspective, rather than the perspective of the Indigenous person who is receiving the care. INCLUSION CRITERIA: This review will consider studies that involve Indigenous peoples' positive experiences with culturally safe health care from any study setting. Studies that present relevant qualitative findings including descriptions, examples, or stories about how a health care provider enacted cultural safety from Indigenous perspectives will be considered. METHODS: MEDLINE, CINAHL, Embase, PsycINFO, First Nations Periodical Index, the Native Health Database, the Indigenous Studies Portal, and the Arctic and Antarctic Regions Database will be searched for published studies. The search for unpublished studies will include Google and Google Scholar, ProQuest Dissertations and Theses, and OpenGrey. Databases will be searched from 1988 onward and only studies published in English will be included. The JBI systematic review guidelines will be followed. The JBI process of meta-aggregation will be used to identify categories and synthesize findings. The ConQual approach will be used to assess confidence in the review findings. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION NUMBER: PROSPERO CRD42020173003.
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 | 0.131 | 0.077 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.009 | 0.008 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.016 | 0.011 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.006 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.051 | 0.005 |
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".