Understanding culturally safe cancer survivorship care with inuit in an urban community
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cancer is a leading cause of death among Inuit. A legacy of colonialism, residential schools, and systemic racism has eroded trust among Inuit and many do not receive culturally safe care. This study aimed to explore the meaning of culturally safe cancer survivorship care for Inuit, and barriers and facilitators to receiving it in an urban setting in Ontario Canada. As Inuit and Western researchers, we conducted a descriptive qualitative study. We held two focus groups (n = 27) with cancer survivors and family members, and semi-structured interviews (n = 7) with health providers. Data were analysed using thematic content analysis.Three broad themes emerged as central to culturally safe care: access to traditional ways of life, communication, and family involvement. Family support, patient navigators, and designated spaces were facilitators; lack of support for traditional ways, like country food, was a barrier. Participants were clear what constituted culturally safe care, but major barriers exist. Lack of direction at institutional and governmental levels contributes to the complexity of issues that prevent Inuit from engaging in and receiving culturally safe cancer care. To understand how to transform healthcare to be culturally safe, studies underpinned by Inuit epistemology, values, and principles are required.
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 | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.022 | 0.009 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| 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".