Use of traditional therapies in palliative care for Australian First Nations peoples: An integrative review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIMS AND OBJECTIVES: To conduct an integrative review of the literature to understand how the incorporation of traditional therapies affect First Nations people's utilisation of palliative care services. BACKGROUND: First Nations peoples face many barriers related to accessing and utilising specialised health services such as palliative care. Whilst culturally appropriate care has been shown to improve these outcomes, there is little evidence regarding how this may be achieved. DESIGN: Integrative review. METHODS: 2021 databases were searched for papers with full text available and published in English. Papers were included if they were primary-based research and focused on the topics of the use of traditional therapies in a palliative care context by First Nations persons. The Critical Appraisal Skills Programme principles were used to assess the methodological quality of the selected articles. RESULTS: Seven studies met the inclusion criteria and were included in the review. The review included six qualitative studies and one quantitative study. From these studies, five themes were identified in the literature: supporting a holistic approach, developing culturally appropriate care, conflict within a Western medical model, regulatory issues, and geographical barriers. CONCLUSION: There is a dearth of current literature available discussing the utilization of traditional therapies in palliative care. From the literature analysed, the benefits of including traditional therapies are overall positive, however, there are barriers including conflict with the Western model of medicine and regulation. More research is required in the provision of traditional therapies in palliative care. RELEVANCE TO CLINICAL PRACTICE: The incorporation of traditional medicines within a palliative care setting could help nurses provide holistic and culturally appropriate care, especially in rural and remote areas where they make up the majority of the healthcare force.
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 | 0.001 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".