Collective Health Decision-Making: Exploring Examples from Chinese Families in Australia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Australia’s patient-centred healthcare system emphasises individual autonomy, but this approach may not align with families that have culturally collectivist values. One example is Chinese culture, where collectivist values are rooted in Confucian principles of responsibility. Chinese people are the largest non-English-speaking migrant group in Australia, so understanding how Chinese families make health decisions is important for improving communication, access, and participation in preventive care. This study examined how Chinese immigrant families in Australia make health-related decisions, focusing on vaccination and bowel cancer screening, and how cultural and intergenerational factors shape these processes. We conducted semi-structured interviews with 13 Chinese multigenerational families living in Victoria in 2023, each including at least two generations living under one roof. Interviews were conducted in Mandarin for each family with one older parent, one adult child, and both together, and were analysed using reflexive thematic analysis. Four themes were identified: (1) language and cultural alignment, with families relying on Chinese-speaking doctors and culturally familiar information sources; (2) collective effort and interdependence, with adult children often leading or supporting decisions due to English proficiency and familiarity with the healthcare system; (3) intergenerational conflict, particularly when older parents withheld health concerns to avoid burdening their children; and (4) negotiation and implementation strategies by adult children, including using doctors’ authority and arranging appointments. Decision-making patterns ranged from full delegation (to adult child) to shared deliberation, with respect for parental autonomy remaining important. These findings highlight the interplay between cultural norms, family roles, and systemic barriers to accessing healthcare. We demonstrate that strict adherence to Western privacy norms limits access to care for collectivist families. Instead, healthcare services should provide accessible language support, culturally tailored health education, and options for both family-based and independent patient engagement to improve health outcomes in culturally and linguistically diverse populations.
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 | 0.007 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.010 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".