Cultural competence and safety in Circumpolar countries: an analysis of discourses in healthcare
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Circumpolar Indigenous populations continue to experience dramatic health inequities when compared to their national counterparts. The objectives of this study are first, to explore the space given in the existing literature to the concepts of cultural safety and cultural competence, as it relates to Indigenous peoples in Circumpolar contexts; and second, to document where innovations have emerged. We conducted a review of the English, Danish, Norwegian, Russian and Swedish Circumpolar health literature focusing on Indigenous populations. We include research related to Alaska (USA); the Yukon, the Northwest Territories, Nunavik and Labrador (Canada); Greenland; Sápmi (northmost part of Sweden, Norway, and Finland); and arctic Russia. Our results show that the concepts of cultural safety and cultural competence (cultural humility in Nunavut) are widely discussed in the Canadian literature. In Alaska, the term relationship-centred care has emerged, and is defined broadly to encompass clinician-patient relationships and structural barriers to care. We found no evidence that similar concepts are used to inform service delivery in Greenland, Nordic countries and Russia. While we recognise that healthcare innovations are often localised, and that there is often a lapse before localised innovations find their way into the literature, we conclude that the general lack of attention to culturally safe care for Sámi and Greenlandic Inuit is somewhat surprising given Nordic countries' concern for the welfare of their citizens. We see this as an important gap, and out of step with commitments made under United Nations Declarations on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. We call for the integration of cultural safety (and its variants) as a lens to inform the development of health programs aiming to improve Indigenous in Circumpolar countries.
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 | 0.021 | 0.028 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.015 | 0.023 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.011 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".