Reflexive Practice as an Approach to Improve Healthcare Delivery for Indigenous Peoples: A Systematic Critical Synthesis and Exploration of the Cultural Safety Education Literature
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cultural safety is increasingly being taught in tertiary programmes of study for health professionals. Reflexivity is a key skill required to engage in culturally safe practice, however, there is currently limited literature examining how reflexivity is taught or assessed within cultural safety curricula. A systematic review of the literature up until November 2021 was conducted, examining educational interventions which aimed to produce culturally safe learners. Studies were limited to those with a focus on Indigenous health and delivered in Australia, Aotearoa New Zealand, Canada, and the United States. A total of 46 documents describing 43 different educational interventions were identified. We found that definitions and conceptualisations of reflexivity varied considerably, resulting in a lack of conceptual clarity. Reflexive catalysts were the primary pedagogical approaches used, where objects, people, or Indigenous pedagogies provided a counterpoint to learners' knowledges and experiences. Information regarding assessment methods was limited but indicates that the focus of existing programmes has been on changes in learner knowledge and attitudes rather than the ability to engage in reflexivity. The results demonstrate a need for greater conceptual clarity regarding reflexivity as it relates to cultural safety, and to develop methods of assessment that focus on process rather than outcomes.
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 | 0.087 | 0.164 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.020 | 0.015 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| 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".