Appraising Indigenous cultural safety within healthcare: Protocol of a scoping review of reviews
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIM: The objective of this scoping review of reviews will be to synthesize the existing literature to identify key elements, conceptualizations and interventions of cultural safety to improve healthcare for Indigenous Peoples. DESIGN: Eligible studies will include reviews (e.g. scoping reviews, systematic reviews and narrative reviews) focused on Indigenous cultural safety in healthcare. METHODS: Guided by Weber-Pillwax's Indigenous principles of relationality and Arksey and O'Malley's scoping review framework, a review of reviews will be conducted by searching peer-reviewed literature published between January 2010 and December 2020. The database search will include CINAHL, PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and Google Scholar. This scoping review protocol was registered with the Joanna Briggs Institute on January 28, 2021. DISCUSSION: There is a paucity of knowledge on existing interventions and implementation strategies to support Indigenous cultural safety within the healthcare system. Improving Indigenous cultural safety in healthcare requires a comprehensive understanding of its core components and the specific interventions. IMPACT: This review will help guide future research and enhance cultural safety interventions for Indigenous Peoples, including Indigenous Peoples with diverse genders and sexualities. The findings from this review will provide critical insight and knowledge to inform cultural safety policies, programs and practices to support healthcare for Indigenous populations.
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 | 0.006 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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".