Culturally safe community agency health promotion capacity for diverse equity-seeking women: a rapid theoretical review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objectives: Immigrant and sexually/gender-diverse women (henceforth, women) face inequities in access to and quality of care. As a result, many seek health information from community agencies perceived as culturally safe. We aimed to generate knowledge on capacity needed for culturally safe community agency health promotion. Design: Theoretical rapid review. Data sources: Studies identified in MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, PsycINFO, Sociological Abstracts, Cochrane Library and the Joanna Briggs Institute Database of Systematic Reviews. Eligibility criteria: Studies published in 2013 or later on health promotion for ethnoculturally, sexually and gender-diverse women led by community agencies (eg, settlement, cultural, support and faith). Data extraction/synthesis: We extracted data on study characteristics, cultural tailoring, implementation with the Reach Effectiveness Adoption Implementation framework and health promotion capacity with the New South Wales framework. Results: We included 19 studies published from 2017 to 2023. Most focused on health promotion to African or Latin American persons in faith-based organisations. Few studies focused solely on women, and no studies focused on or included 2SLGBTQ women. Few studies described cultural tailoring beyond the use of participants' first language. Training of community health workers (CHWs) to deliver health promotion education, and CHW in-person group training of health promotion participants on a wide range of topics resulted in improved knowledge, self-efficacy, intention to modify behaviour, behaviour change and health outcomes. A few studies yielded some insight into what community agencies need to enable health promotion: dedicated funding and personnel, training in healthcare issues, space and partnerships with academic and healthcare organisations. Conclusions: This study confirmed and enhanced our understanding of the health promotion role of community agencies and identified gaps that can inform future research on how to achieve culturally safe community agency health promotion for diverse women.
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 | 0.027 | 0.073 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.019 | 0.012 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
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".