Culturally responsive occupational therapy practice with First Nations Peoples—A scoping review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: First Nations Peoples consistently demonstrate strength and resilience in navigating systemic health care inequities. Acknowledging racism as a health determinant underscores the urgent need for a counterforce-cultural safety. Indigenous Allied Health Australia (IAHA) contends that with cultural responsiveness, the health workforce can take action to create a culturally safe environment. OBJECTIVE: To explore features of culturally responsive occupational therapy (OT) practice when providing a service with First Nations People and examine alignment of those features with the IAHA Cultural Responsiveness in Action Framework. DESIGN: A systematic scoping review was undertaken using CINAHL, Emcare, MEDLINE, PsychInfo and Scopus databases. Examples of culturally responsive OT practice with First Nations Peoples were mapped to the six IAHA Framework capabilities and confirmed by First Nations co-authors. FINDINGS: OT practice with First Nations Peoples aligned with the six capabilities to varying degrees. The importance of OTs establishing relationships with First Nations People, applying self-reflection to uncover cultural biases, and addressing limitations of the profession's Western foundations was evident. DISCUSSION: Recognising the interrelatedness of the six capabilities, the absence of some may result in a culturally unsafe experience for First Nations People. OTs must acknowledge the leadership of First Nations Peoples by privileging their voices and consider how established practices may reinforce oppressive systems. CONCLUSION: To ensure a culturally safe environment for First Nations People, the OT profession must respect the leadership of First Nations Peoples and address the limitations of the profession's Western foundations to uphold the profession's core value of client-centred 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 | 0.014 | 0.078 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.017 | 0.018 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".