Aboriginal young people’s experiences of Cultural Safety in mental health services in two regions of New South Wales, Australia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article assesses the Cultural Safety of mainstream mental health services in two regions of New South Wales, Australia, based on the experiences and perspectives of Aboriginal young people aged 16 – 25. Yarning semi-structured in-depth interviews were conducted with thirteen Aboriginal young people in two regions of New South Wales. Thematic analysis was undertaken by all research members to identify themes from the data and conceptual connections between them. Identified themes from individual analysis and coding were triangulated during several analysis meetings to finalize key themes and findings. Aboriginal young people identified that Aboriginal Community Controlled Health Services offered culturally safe Social and Emotional Wellbeing service supports, whereas mainstream mental health services did not. Aboriginal young people proposed that institutional reforms such as increasing engagement with cultural competency programs, employing more Aboriginal staff, and implementing culturally meaningful services, would increase Cultural Safety in mainstream mental health services. Cultural Safety within mainstream mental health services should be enhanced to ensure the subjective Social and Emotional Wellbeing support needs of Aboriginal young people are understood, addressed, and supported. Without Aboriginal young people having confidence that mainstream mental health services and systems are prioritising Cultural Safety when providing supports, mainstream mental health systems risk failing to reduce mental health and Social and Emotional Wellbeing disparities unjustly experienced by Aboriginal young people in New South Wales.
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.012 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".