A qualitative exploration of Indigenous patients’ experiences of racism and perspectives on improving cultural safety within health care
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: In Canada, Indigenous Peoples continue to experience persistent health inequities, resulting in disproportionately poorer health outcomes compared with non-Indigenous Canadians. This study engaged Indigenous patients accessing health care in Vancouver, Canada, about their experiences of racism and improving cultural safety within health care. METHODS: A research team consisting of Indigenous and non-Indigenous researchers committed to employing a Two-Eyed Seeing approach and conducting culturally safe research hosted 2 sharing circles in May 2019 with Indigenous people recruited from urban health care settings. Talking circles were led by Indigenous Elders, and thematic analysis was used to identify overarching themes. RESULTS: A total of 26 participants attended 2 sharing circles, which included 25 self-identifying women and 1 self-identifying man. Thematic analysis resulted in the identification of 2 major themes: negative experiences in health care and perspectives on promising health care practices. For the first major theme, subthemes included the following: experiences of racism lead to poorer care experiences and health outcomes, Indigenous-specific racism results in mistrust in the health care system, and participants experience discrediting of traditional medicine and Indigenous perspectives on health. For the second major theme, subthemes included the following: Indigenous-specific services and supports improve trust in health care, Indigenous cultural safety education is necessary for all health care-involved staff, and providing welcoming, Indigenized spaces for Indigenous patients encourages health care engagement. INTERPRETATION: Despite participants' racist health care experiences, receiving culturally safe care was credited with improving trust in the health care system and well-being. The continued expansion of Indigenous cultural safety education, the creation of welcoming spaces, recruitment of Indigenous staff, and Indigenous self-determination over health care services can improve Indigenous patients' health care experiences.
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 | 0.012 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.020 | 0.015 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".