What Outcomes Are Associated with Learning About Colonialism and Its Impacts on Indigenous Peoples in Health Professional Programs? A Critical Integrative Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: The Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada called upon health professional programs to teach about historical and on-going colonalism. Since these calls to action, there has been an increase in educational opportunities on the topic. Although it is generally assumed that learning about colonialism will reduce racism and improve allyship towards Indigenous Peoples, an evaluation of this assumption is needed. Purpose: An integrated review of the literature was conducted to assess how participation in educational experiences is associated with learner outcomes and how they may vary according to course design considerations including the guiding framework, content foci, mode of delivery, activities, and duration. Methods: Studies assessing outcomes of educational activities related to the legacy of colonialism identified in a previous scoping review, as well as any such studies published since then were included in the present study. Data synthesis was performed using content analysis of the results and discussions presented in the included papers. Results: A review of 15 papers identified a backfire effect that was only evident among the studies that included a delayed post-evaluation timeframe. In two educational experiences, it was found that learners were more likely to express unfavourable attitudes towards Indigenous Peoples post-training. These educational opportunities were designed using a cultural safety framework and followed a similar course delivery (e.g., viewing of vodcasts, use of case studies) and provided similar content (historical policies, Indigenous cultural beliefs and practices). Conclusions: The findings should be interpreted with caution but point to plausible implications related to the backfire effect of educational opportunities on learners' attitudes towards Indigenous Peoples post-training.
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 | 0.022 | 0.087 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.014 | 0.012 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| 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".