Nurses' experiences of racism in mental health settings through patient and family interactions: A systematic review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Nursing staff engage readily with patients and associates in mental health/forensic inpatient settings. These settings are known to have instances of workplace violence directed towards staff and such violence includes racism. Racism is a form of workplace violence that must be better understood and supported within this complex setting. Completing a systematic review to coalesce preexisting research and suggested interventions can be beneficial to supporting nurses. Systematic review following PRISMA guidelines. CINAHL, PsycInfo, Medline, British Nursing Database and Web of Science databases were searched. Reviewers screened the papers for inclusion (29 articles out of 7146 were selected for inclusion) and completed the quality appraisal using the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool. Subsequently, data extraction was completed, and findings were summarised through narrative synthesis. The way racism was conceptualised impacted how data was collected, reported and interpreted; racism was silenced or exposed depending on how studies were undertaken. If exposed, evidence indicates racism is a problem but is not always acknowledged or acted upon. Some evidence determined racism led to negative work-related outcomes. The literature provided limited examples of interventions. These included changing education/orientation for staff, openly discussing racist events and better planning for patients among colleagues and management. Increasing diversity within the workforce requires more research exploring and addressing issues related to racism towards nurses. Narratives of racism being normalised and embedded in mental health/forensic settings need to be challenged.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".