Supporting First Nations Family Caregivers and Providers: Family Caregivers’, Health and Community Providers’, and Leaders’ Recommendations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Family caregivers and care providers are increasingly becoming more distressed and reaching a breaking point within current systems of care. First Nations family caregivers and the health and community providers employed in First Nations communities have to cope with colonial, discriminatory practices that have caused intergenerational trauma and a myriad of siloed, disconnected, and difficult-to-navigate federal-, provincial/territorial-, and community-level policies and programs. Indigenous participants in Alberta’s Health Advisory Councils described Indigenous family caregivers as having more difficulty accessing support than other Alberta caregivers. In this article, we report on family caregivers’, providers’, and leaders’ recommendations to support First Nations family caregivers and the health and community providers employed in First Nations. We used participatory action research methods in which we drew on Etuaptmumk (the understanding that being in the world is the gift of multiple perspectives) and that Indigenous and non-Indigenous views are complementary. Participants were from two First Nation communities in Alberta and included family caregivers (n = 6), health and community providers (n = 14), and healthcare and community leaders (n = 6). Participants advised that family caregivers needed four types of support: (1) recognize the family caregivers’ role and work; (2) enhance navigation and timely access to services, (3) improve home care support and respite, and (4) provide culturally safe care. Participants had four recommendations to support providers: (1) support community providers’ health and wellbeing; (2) recruit and retain health and community providers; (3) improve orientation for new providers; and (4) offer providers a comprehensive grounding in cultural awareness. While creating a program or department for family caregivers may be tempting to address caregivers’ immediate needs, improving the health of First Nations family caregivers requires a population-based public health approach that focuses on meaningful holistic system change to support family caregivers.
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 | 0.018 | 0.033 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.013 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.011 | 0.010 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
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".