Striving for Culturally Competent Elder Care
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Caring for older people brings many challenges that could lead to healthcare disparities. These challenges are not only related to the growing ethnic diversity among older adults population, but they are also due to intergenerational differences, various perceptions of old age in the society, and differences in life situations and life experiences both between older people and younger people, and among older adults themselves. These challenges could be met by striving for culturally competent care that is regarded as a collective responsibility of care professions, institutions and healthcare systems. A culturally competent approach offers the opportunity to support healthcare providers in their commitment to equity-oriented care. How could cultural competence development be promoted among nurses and other health professionals caring for older adults? In this chapter, we discuss the application of Blanchet Garneau’s constructivist model of cultural competence development in the context of elder care. The application of Blanchet Garneau’s model could promote the development of cultural competence among health professionals caring for older adults. Two clinical situations introducing challenges in culturally competent elder care are presented in relation with this model. Strategies to support healthcare professionals in the development of their cultural competence that could be incorporated into practice as well as into initial and continuing education are also discussed. These strategies have the potential to take healthcare professionals beyond the established structures of their practice toward effective, good-quality and equity-oriented healthcare for all ages.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 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".