Teaching cultural safety principles: optometry student perceptions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Providing optometry learners with cultural safety training can improve patient safety and health outcomes among Indigenous Peoples. BACKGROUND: Healthcare practitioners require cultural safety training to provide safe eye care to Indigenous Peoples in Canada. Culturally safe care requires optometrists to critically reflect upon their unconscious biases and power differences that impact patient care. Informed by the cultural safety literature and working directly with learners, revisions were made to first and second-year optometry clinic experience courses in a Canadian Doctor of Optometry program. This descriptive study examined student feedback on curricular changes, focused on enhancing cultural safety. METHODS: An 8-item, anonymous, online survey was offered to all learners (n = 178) enrolled in clinic experience courses at in fall 2021 and winter 2022. The survey addressed student understanding of cultural safety, comfort with self-reflective activities, and course effectiveness in teaching patient-centred care. Six items used a 5-point Likert response scale. Descriptive statistics were analyzed (Wilcoxon and Wilcoxon-Pratt). Two open-ended items were analysed using content analysis for themes. RESULTS: Thirty-three surveys were completed. Overall respondents found the clinic experience courses provided effective training in cultural safety and were of professional value. Comfort engaging in self-reflective activities increased (before: mean response 4.0; after: 4.4), and students made connections with societal problems (overall mean 3.5) and with bias/power differential (overall mean 4.0). Suggested changes to support the learning objectives included increased clinic observation, scaffolding these topics in additional courses, and adding relevant literature (e.g. anti-racism) and guest speakers with Indigenous knowledge and experience. CONCLUSION: Optometry learners were favourable about the inclusion of cultural safety concepts in their clinic experience courses. Their feedback points to areas for improvement including deepening course content, and collaborating with Indigenous Peoples in content, course design, and cross-curricular scaffolding.
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 | 0.004 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".