Building Bridges for Indigenous Children’s Health: Community Needs Assessment Through Talking Circle Methodology
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Sherri Di Lallo,1 Keren Schoenberger,2 Laura Graham,2 Ashley Drobot,2 Mubashir Aslam Arain3 1Stollery Awasisak Indigenous Health, Alberta Health Services, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada; 2Health Systems Evaluation and Evidence, Alberta Health Services, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada; 3Health Systems Evaluation and Evidence, Alberta Health Services, Calgary, Alberta, CanadaCorrespondence: Mubashir Aslam ArainHealth Systems Evaluation and Evidence, Alberta Health Services, 10301 Southport Lane SW, Calgary, Alberta, T2W 1S7, CanadaTel +1 403-943-0783Fax +1 403-943-2875Email mubashiraslam.arain@ahs.caObjective: The Stollery Children’s Hospital in Edmonton, Alberta, introduced the Stollery Awasisak team to provide targeted support to Indigenous families and their children. Talking Circles were conducted across northern communities from 2017 to 2019 to better understand how Indigenous people perceive the current state of healthcare services delivered by the Stollery Hospital.Methods: The 2019 Talking Circles were held in six cities: Grande Prairie, Slave Lake, High Level, Fort McMurray, Edmonton, and Cold Lake, which were the biggest circles held to date with an attendance of 160 participants. Participants included members of Treaties 6 and 8, and Metis Nations of Alberta, as well as healthcare professionals in those regions.Results: Talking Circles identified challenges Indigenous (First Nation, Inuit and Metis) pediatric patients and their families experienced from accessing care to transitioning home to exploring their positive experiences with the Stollery Hospital and other frontline collaborates. Through these circles guided by Elders in ceremonies, priorities and recommendations were made to help support pediatric patients and their families.Conclusion: Multiple perspectives provided rich data on how best to adhere to the Truth Reconciliation of Canada 19th mandate and ensure equitable healthcare access to all Indigenous children. Together, leaders, healthcare providers, service providers and community members reflected on the lessons of the Medicine Wheel quadrants and the Seven Sacred Teachings, and brought forward four priorities; capacity building, continuity of care, culturally responsive care and increased communication.Keywords: discharge planning, Indigenous Health, Talking Circles, cultural safety
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 | 0.021 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".