Indigenous Cultural Safety in Recognizing and Responding to Family Violence: A Systematic Scoping Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This systematic scoping review synthesizes the recommended approaches for providing culturally safe family violence interventions to Indigenous peoples in health care and social service settings. A total of 3783 sources were identified through our electronic database searches, hand-searching of Indigenous-focused journals, and backward and forward citation chaining. After screening those sources in duplicate, 28 papers were included for synthesis in June 2020. Forward citation chaining of these 28 included articles in June 2022 identified an additional 304 possible articles for inclusion; following the screening of those 304 articles, an additional 6 were retained in the review. Thus, a total of 34 articles were included for data extraction and narrative synthesis. Initial results were presented to members of the Six Nations of the Grand River Youth Mental Wellness Committee, and their feedback was incorporated into our inductive organization of findings. Our findings represent three thematic areas that reflect key recommendations for health care and social service provision to Indigenous families for whom family violence is a concern: (1) creating the conditions for cultural safety; (2) healing at the individual and community level; and (3) system-level change. These findings demonstrate the need to center Indigenous peoples and perspectives in the development and implementation of cultural safety approaches, to acknowledge and address historically contingent causes of past and present family violence including colonization and related state policies, and to transform knowledge and power relationships at the provider, organization, and government level.
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 | 0.048 | 0.173 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.027 | 0.022 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| 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".