Cultural models within general practice/family medicine training: a scoping review protocol
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Cultural competency, cultural safety, cultural humility and transcultural care have developed as frameworks to better equip medical professionals towards a more culturally appropriate healthcare system. The aim of this scoping review is to map the use of these cultural models within general practice/general practitioner (GP) training. We have elected to use the term 'GP' to encompass all trainee doctors within general practice/family medicine. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This scoping review will be conducted in accordance with the Scoping Review Methods Manual by the Joanna Briggs Institute and the Arksey and O'Malley framework for scoping studies and reported using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews. Searches were conducted in EMBASE, MEDLINE and Web of Science Core Collection, with the support of a subject librarian. Published literature on cultural competence, cultural safety, cultural humility and transcultural care related to GP training will be included. There will be no restriction placed on language. References will be managed on EndNote, and titles and abstracts will be screened against the inclusion criteria by two independent reviewers. Potentially relevant sources will be retrieved in full and their citation imported into Rayyan. Data will be extracted on the year, type of study, country or countries of affiliated authors, characteristics of participants, research design and setting, cultural model being examined, definitions used, attitudes, outcome and application of the model, and purpose of the study. We aim to use basic qualitative content analysis for data extracted to map the landscape of the published literature around cultural competence, cultural humility, cultural safety and transcultural care. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethics approval was not required for this Scoping Review protocol. Findings will be disseminated through conference presentations and publication in a scientific journal.
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 | 0.146 | 0.094 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.012 | 0.010 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.021 | 0.017 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.012 |
| Open science | 0.006 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.009 | 0.009 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.080 | 0.022 |
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".