Working right ways investigating health practitioners’ perspectives of foot health and needs for providing good foot care with and for First Nations Peoples.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: History of invasion, ongoing colonisation, and systemic racism excluding First Nations Peoples from healthcare are root cause of health inequalities including disparities in foot health outcomes. Sources of inquiry into current practice, learning, and experience which may shape reform of providing good foot care with and for First Nations Peoples in the land now known as Australia are health practitioners working in the space. This work seeks to explore foot care service delivery by investigating First Nations and non-Indigenous health practitioners’ perspectives regarding providing foot care with and for First Nations Peoples. Methods: Ways of working are documented in previous work; ‘Working right ways in foot health with and for First Nations Peoples: research method guided and governed by First Nations ways of knowing, being, and doing in cross-sectional qualitative study design’. Four First Nations and six non-Indigenous health practitioners provided perspectives with culturally responsive semi-structured interviews guiding talking with consenting participants. Analytic induction utilised First Nations expertise, inductive reasoning, and constant comparison method in thematic analysis. Results: Two talking points engaged health practitioners’ perspectives of providing foot care with and for First Nations Peoples: (1) What does foot health mean to you as a First Nations or non-Indigenous health practitioner? (2) What are needs for providing good foot care with and for First Nations Peoples? Within responses, themes emerged of mobility, overall wellbeing, and advocacy being related to the meaning of foot health. The requirements of Cultural Safety, workforce, and holistic care were perceived as needed for provision of good foot care with and for First Nations Peoples. Conclusion: Participants described a meaning of foot health relational to physical and spiritual constructs, and central to reclamation of, and continuation of, First Nations cultures; amidst a project of ongoing colonisation. Needs for good foot care provision with and for First Nations Peoples included a workforce continually learning and unlearning to develop cultural capabilities to work with and for, and support, First Nations foot health. This study provides qualified voiced lived experience of health practitioners working in the space which the podiatry profession must listen to and receive direction and learning from.
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 | 0.032 | 0.026 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.016 | 0.021 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.013 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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 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".