MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4387172906 · doi:10.33844/cjm.2023.6030

Removing Barriers to Wound Care, Applying Appreciative Inquiry to Improve the Management of Wounds within the Matawa First Nations: The Inquiry Phase

2023· article· en· W4387172906 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Margarita Elloso, Vida Maksimoska, Saadon abdulla, M. K. Mamedov, Mouhannad M.AL-Hachamii, Mahmood J.Humady, Faris H.Mohammad

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Medicine · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicEmpathy and Medical Education
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoHealth Sciences CentreMcMaster University Medical CentreHamilton Health SciencesNOSM University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAppreciative inquiryEmpowermentPublic relationsHealth careNursingGeneral partnershipWound carePsychologyMedicineSociologyBusinessPolitical sciencePedagogy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The study reports findings of the inquiry phase of appreciative inquiry to understand the problem space of remote wound care within the First Nations communities.The appreciative inquiry method was employed in the study after a partnership with the Matawa First Nations focusing on providers’ strengths and ability to give care. When discussing strategies that helped augment the level of care, providers also discussed the barriers to care and why they had employed specific strategies to overcome them. Appreciative inquiry has four phases: inquire, imagine, innovate, and implement. Healthcare providers were interviewed during the inquiry phase, focusing on understanding the current state regarding wounds, provider strengths and what worked well.Findings: Seven dominant themes emerged from the research: building trust with the community, cultural unpreparedness, empowerment, patient connection and lived experiences, communication with staff and community members, discontinuity of care, and limited resources. A strength-based, positive-interview approach uncovered strategies for treating wounds in remote communities: empowering patients, giving them an active role in their care, and making them feel heard were all adopted by healthcare providers.Barriers leading to difficulty in providing care included disconnected healthcare, limited resources, insufficient infrastructure, a lack of clean water, limited cultural understanding, and environmental challenges. Understanding the barriers to care requires a recognition of the social and historical effects of colonialism on these communities. There are also complex systemic issues that aggregate and worsen how care is provided within these communities. It is important to understand and acknowledge these fundamental issues while simultaneously helping augment the strategies that have been shown to improve wound care in these communities.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.023
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.029
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.997
Threshold uncertainty score0.121

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0230.029
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0090.008
Scholarly communication0.0070.004
Open science0.0020.011
Research integrity0.0020.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.039
GPT teacher head0.341
Teacher spread0.301 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2023
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of MedicineSame topicEmpathy and Medical EducationFrench-language works237,207