Cultural Education Provided to Renal Staff Caring for First Nations People in Australia and Similarly Colonized Countries: A Scoping Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: First Nations People receive clinical care by renal staff who may or may not have had access to cultural education. If they have, what this education involves and if it has been co-designed with First Nations People is unknown. OBJECTIVE: Conduct a scoping review to examine the range and types of cultural education provided to clinical and professional (nonclinical) renal staff caring for First Nations People in Australia and similarly other colonized countries {Aotearoa/New Zealand (NZ), Canada, and North America}. DESIGN: Using the JBI methodology for scoping reviews a systematic search of 11 database (Australian Indigenous Health InfoNet, Scopus, APAIS-ATSIS (Informit), CINAHL (EBSCO), Embase (Ovid), Medline (Ovid), Health & Medical Collection (Proquest), Nursing & Allied Health Database (Proquest), Psychology Database (Proquest), Public Health Database (Proquest), and Sociology Database (Proquest) was undertaken. The search included studies published in English from January 1992 to September 2024. RESULTS: Nineteen papers met the scoping review criteria identifying multiple barriers and effective staff cultural education in renal settings. Sixteen papers were from Australia. Only three papers undertook both cultural education and evaluation. Cultural safety emerged as an education and clinical approach increasingly used internationally to inform positive effects on both care recipients (First Nations People with kidney disease) and staff participants. CONCLUSION: There is limited published literature regarding renal-specific cultural education for kidney care staff working with First Nations People. The extent to which First Nations recipients of care have been involved and education effectiveness evaluated is not evident.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".