A national survey of Swiss paediatric oncology care providers’ cross-cultural competences
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Culturally diverse countries such as Switzerland face the challenge of providing cross-cultural competent care. Cross-cultural competent care needs an understanding of a patient's cultural context in order to provide safe and effective care. Therefore, we sought to examine cross-cultural competence of Swiss paediatric oncology care providers, and to explore their perceptions of barriers to and facilitators of cross-culturally competent care. DESIGN AND SAMPLE: We conducted a cross-sectional study. The data collection period was three weeks. Providers were recruited through collaborators at the participating paediatric oncology centres. All occupational groups who are in direct contact with patients and involved in their care were eligible (e.g., physicians, nurses, social workers, occupational therapists and physiotherapists). Surveying providers online, we captured five subscales of their cross-cultural competence and their perceptions as to how to facilitate cross-culturally competent paediatric oncology care. We employed the Cross-Cultural Competence of Healthcare Professionals (CCCHP) questionnaire. Besides descriptive and inferential statistics, we performed content analysis. FINDINGS: The response rate was 73.2% (n = 183/250). Analyses revealed differences in cross-cultural competence between occupational groups of paediatric oncology providers. Overall, social workers' cross-cultural competence was higher than nurses' or occupational therapists' and physiotherapists' cross-cultural competence. Physicians' cross-cultural competence was higher than nurses (with no statistically significant difference identified between physicians, occupational therapists and physiotherapists). Furthermore, our results suggest noteworthy differences among the four main occupational groups on the five CCCHP subscales. Physicians and social workers declared more positive attitudes than nurses; occupational therapists and physiotherapists reported lower skills than the other three groups; social workers scored higher on the emotions and empathy subscale than the other three groups; physicians were more knowledgeable and aware than nurses. Most frequently mentioned barriers were: language barriers (68.5%), different culture and values (19.2%), different illness understanding (9.2%). Most frequently mentioned facilitators were: professional translators (47.2%), continuous training (20.8%), professional cultural mediators (8.8%). CONCLUSIONS/IMPLICATIONS: Trainings and interventions are widely considered a principal strategy to advance providers' cross-cultural competence. Our findings of differences in cross-cultural competence among occupational groups further underpin the need to adapt training programmes and interventions to the respective occupational group and the respective dimension(s) of cross-cultural competence. In addition, professional translators and cultural mediators should be used. Lastly, reciprocal supervision and the promotion of multidisciplinary teams is crucial to enable oncology care providers to learn from each other and this exchange could also help to reduce some of the differences between the various occupational 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 | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".