Culturally determined care goals and the efficacy of statutory services
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article describes the culturally determined understandings of good mental health and distress of older Pakistani-Punjabi immigrants in Britain, and of how these beliefs may determine specific goals and needs during the help-seeking process for distressed minority ethnic service users. This includes a discussion of how these beliefs determine the perceptions of appropriateness and efficacy of statutory treatment options. The data is drawn from a qualitative, largely interview-based study of Pakistani immigrants, statutory healthcare service providers, and traditional Pakistani healers in Northern England. The study aimed to assess the reasons for the low uptake and apparently poor efficacy of statutory services provided to the immigrant group, despite a high prevalence of distress in this group. The study found that interaction (usually surgery consultation) between service users and providers was unsatisfactory for both parties. The unsatisfactory results of service use for both providers and users appeared to be rooted primarily in cultural misunderstandings that led to divergent goals, and thus divergent approaches to service use/provision behaviour. It is hoped that this article may serve as a guideline for the development of more appropriate and effective services for similar groups.
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 | 0.010 | 0.036 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".