The Role of Cultural Safety Within a Human Rights‐Based Approach to Improve Indigenous Peoples’ Health: A Scoping Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIM: To examine the role of cultural safety within a human rights-based approach to improving the health of Indigenous Peoples. DESIGN: Guided by Askey and O'Malley's scoping review framework, the literature was examined on cultural safety and prioritised Indigenous voices to inform culturally safe practices. Relevant literature from 2009 to 2021 was included. DATA SOURCES: Databases included CINAHL, PubMed, Informit and the Australian Indigenous HealthInfoNet. REVIEW METHODS: Search terms included 'Indigenous Peoples', 'cultural safety' and 'human rights' within the context of health in Australia, Aotearoa and Canada. RESULTS: The database searches yielded 147 abstracts. After screening, 39 studies were included in the review, describing four overarching themes on the connection between cultural safety and the right to health. CONCLUSIONS: Despite cultural safety being linked to key elements of the right to health, such as availability, accessibility, and culturally acceptable resources and services, there is still paucity in research on cultural safety within a human rights framework. Evidence supports cultural safety to decolonise practices, embrace Indigenous knowledge and challenge racism. Linking cultural safety to key elements of the right to health compels nations that have ratified the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights to embed cultural safety to fulfil their legal obligation to address health equity according to International Human Rights Law. This study is the first to add a human rights lens on cultural safety. IMPACT: The findings underscore the need for clear and explicit linkage between cultural safety and the right to health. This will prompt greater accountability for healthcare institutions and providers and governments to create a more culturally safe healthcare system and to recognise that cultural safety is not optional but an inherent part of the right to health. NO PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: Cultural safety, decolonisation, health equity, human rights, Indigenous, nursing, racism.
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 | 0.023 | 0.071 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.012 | 0.010 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| 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".