MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Cultural Safety

2019· reference-entry· en· W4252082271 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Regine Halseth, Roberta Stout, Donna Atkinson

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typereference-entry
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicCultural Competency in Health Care
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCultural safetyDignityHealth carePrivilege (computing)Ethnic groupHealth equitySociologyIndigenousNursingPsychologyMedicinePolitical sciencePublic health

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

First introduced into nursing education and health care in New Zealand in 1992 by Maori scholar Irihapeti Ramsden, the concept of “cultural safety” is situated within a postcolonial discourse and is concerned with social justice through redressing health inequities and improving access to health care. It is understood as providing care in ways that do not leave patients feeling inferior, alienated, disempowered, devalued, or dissuaded from or denied access to health care, but rather maintains their respect and dignity. When applied, the concept challenges health professionals to continually consider the negative effects their beliefs, attitudes, and practices may have on their patients and their care, and critically reflect on and become self-aware of any biases they may have, rooted in their own culture, that may be contributing to power imbalances in patient-provider interactions. Cultural safety responds to the unique needs of minority and marginalized populations by incorporating respect for their cultural traditions and identities. It also takes into account the systemic and structural barriers that may affect access to health care and the quality of care received, including the socioeconomic determinants that affect health and well-being. Cultural safety is defined by the experiences of patients, not caregivers. Originally conceptualized as a decolonizing model of health-care practice and policy for Indigenous peoples to challenge racism and establish trust in health-care encounters through dialogue, power sharing, negotiation, and acknowledging white privilege, cultural safety has evolved to encompass a broader definition of “culture” that includes ethnicity, age, sexual orientation, religious or spiritual beliefs, gender, and (dis)abilities. While cultural safety is increasingly considered a best practice in the care of vulnerable patients, much debate remains about what the concept entails, how it should be taught, and how to apply it in practice, as well as its relevance within various settings and contexts. This review aims to enhance readers’ understanding of cultural safety in health care by providing an overview of literature in this field. This is a relatively small body of literature, focused primarily on the Canadian, New Zealand, Australian, and American contexts, and much of it is relatively recent and not well known, perhaps signaling an increasing urgency to transform health-care systems to address persistent health inequities for vulnerable and marginalized populations in these places. The literature is categorized into three primary themes—Understanding Cultural Safety in Context, Cultural Safety Education and Training, and Application of Cultural Safety in Policy, Practice, and Other Settings—with further sub-themes.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.109
Threshold uncertainty score0.997

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0100.003

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.

Opus teacher head0.070
GPT teacher head0.379
Teacher spread0.308 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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".

Quick stats

Citations4
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicCultural Competency in Health CareFrench-language works237,207