Co-designing a Health Journey Mapping resource for culturally safe health care with and for First Nations people
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background Many healthcare professionals and services strive to improve cultural safety of care for Australia's First Nations people. However, they work within established systems and structures that do not reliably meet diverse health care needs nor reflect culturally safe paradigms. Journey mapping approaches can improve understanding of patient/client healthcare priorities and care delivery challenges from healthcare professionals' perspectives leading to improved responses that address discriminatory practices and institutional racism. This project aimed to review accessibility and usability of the existing Managing Two Worlds Together (MTWT) patient journey mapping tools and resources, and develop new Health Journey Mapping (HJM) tools and resources. Method Four repeated cycles of collaborative participatory action research were undertaken using repeated cycles of look and listen, think and discuss, take action together. A literature search and survey were conducted to review accessibility and usability of MTWT tools and resources. First Nations patients and families, and First Nations and non-First Nations researchers, hospital and university educators and healthcare professionals (end users), reviewed and tested HJM prototypes, shaping design, format and focus. Results The MTWT tool and resources have been used across multiple health care, research and education settings. However, many users experienced initial difficulty engaging with the tool and offered suggested improvements in design and usability. End user feedback on HJM prototypes identified the need for three distinct mapping tools for three different purposes: clinical care, detailed care planning and strategic mapping, to be accompanied by comprehensive resource materials, instructional guides, videos and case study examples. These were linked to continuous quality improvement and accreditation standards to enhance uptake in healthcare settings. Conclusion The new HJM tools and resources effectively map diverse journeys and assist recognition and application of strengths-based, holistic and culturally safe approaches to health care.
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 | 0.021 | 0.040 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 0.002 |
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".