First Nations Patients’ Experience Receiving Care for Cleft Lip and Palate in a Multidisciplinary Clinic Setting
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose: Our small-scale qualitative study sought to explore the experiences of Indigenous patients receiving care for cleft lip and/or palate at a multidisciplinary clinic. There currently are no published studies that demonstrate the experiences of cleft lip and/or palate patients receiving care in multidisciplinary clinics in Canada. This work is foundational to informing future care in a way that is reflective and cognizant of Indigenous ways of life and lived experiences. Method: Participants were recruited via purposive and snowball sampling through community networks and public advertising in relevant healthcare spaces. Semi-structured interviews were completed; transcribed verbatim and descriptive codes were generated using Indigenist research methodologies through the Blackfoot medicine wheel. Results: Five participants that included patients, parents of patients with cleft lip and/or palate, and Indigenous health liasions were interviewed. Participants indicated a lack of spiritual health, the physical demands of having a cleft lip and/or palate on a patient and their families, the fear and unknown associated with a new cleft lip and/or palate diagnosis, and lack of cultural support, awareness and racism may negatively impact mental health. Conclusion: Indigenous patients must receive cleft lip and/or palate care that is cognizant of both their cultural needs identified in our study but also reflective of the ways in which health may be conceptualized for Indigenous patients. The following models of care suggested in our study must also seek to address historic mandates that include UNDRIP and the Truth and Reconciliation Commission's Calls to Action.
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 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".