THE INTERFACE BETWEEN CULTURE AND CARE IN INDIGENOUS HEALTH: A SCOPING REVIEW
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Indigenous health care is a unique area of care. In Brazil and in other regions of the world, such as Canada and Africa, the ways in which indigenous people are cared for are based on different values directly linked to nature and religion. However, many indigenous health care practices are based on a biomedical approach to problems, with a focus on the biological body (Ribeiro et al, 2017). From this perspective, we highlight the need to guarantee universal, integrated, appropriate and comprehensive public health services, as well as culturally appropriate care actions, respecting sociocultural specificities and rights. These practices must be based on the articulation with traditional indigenous health knowledge and practices through the introduction of new concepts in public policies, the transformation of the organizational forms of care models and the definition of new care practices. Nevertheless, indigenous people continue to be considered one of the most vulnerable population groups globally (Pedrana et al, 2018). That said, particularly in the case of indigenous people, preconceptions and stereotypes can have a negative influence on the attitudes of the health team during care. This makes it necessary for the caregiver to understand illness as a sociocultural process and to consider the experiences of the people being cared for (Ribeiro, Fortuna, Arantes, 2015). However, health professionals often fail to consider the knowledge and conceptions, different from those established by biomedicine, inherent in indigenous ways of looking at life, thus leading to the need to relativize their view of care. Unique health care for indigenous people can be positively impacted by the ability of workers to build a relativized/intercultural gaze, provided by the social space of care that allows them to get to know and value the knowledge and values of users (Ribeiro et al, 2017). Thus, care for the indigenous population requires intercultural communication and interaction processes that need to be studied and understood with a focus on different perspectives (Ribeiro et al, 2017; Ribeiro, Fortuna, Arantes, 2015). These considerations are important for health professionals given the role they play in preventing illness, promoting health, treatment and rehabilitation of the indigenous population. In addition, in the current context of vulnerabilities, health professionals need to be aware of and practice cultural care, based on systematic production of health issues that take into account ethnic-racial aspects, particularly concerning indigenous peoples To this end, it is imperative to analyze the care provided to indigenous peoples taking cultural aspects into account, so that this aspect can be widely disseminated and used in health disciplines, contributing to the clarification of concepts, as it is believed that concepts are continually modified through the observations learned and reflected on in the practice of health professionals. OBJECTIVE To map the scientific evidence on care for indigenous peoples, taking cultural aspects into account
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 | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.002 |
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".