Nats’eji: Exploring Understandings of and Experiences with Indigenous Wellness Services and Healing Practices at Stanton Territorial Hospital, Northwest Territories
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: The Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC) has called for improved collaboration between Indigenous and biomedical healing approaches. Likewise, in the Northwest Territories (NWT), where over 50% of residents are First Nations, Inuit, or Métis, local Indigenous leaders have emphasized the need for better collaborative healthcare models at Stanton Territorial Hospital. In support of these calls, this research examines how Indigenous patients and biomedical healthcare providers understand and experience Indigenous wellness services and healing practices at Stanton Territorial Hospital in Yellowknife, NWT. Research objectives: The project (1) describes participants’ experiences with Indigenous wellness services at Stanton Territorial Hospital; (2) examines the factors that shape participants’ experiences with Indigenous wellness services; and (3) explores how Indigenous patients and biomedical healthcare providers might envision Indigenous healing successfully working with biomedical hospital care. Methods: I carried out a qualitative study from May 2018-June 2022 that was overseen by a regional Indigenous advisory committee and conducted in accordance with OCAP (Ownership, Control, Access, Possession) principles. Guided by Two-Eyed Seeing and post-colonial theory, the research design involved three strategies for data generation: (1) virtual and phone interviews with 41 Indigenous Elders, patient advocates, biomedical healthcare providers, Indigenous Wellness Program staff members, policy makers, and hospital administrators about the study objectives; (2) iterative sharing circles with Indigenous Elders at three different stages in the project; and (3) reflexive journaling. Findings/discussion: Elders and patient advocates emphasized that while Stanton Territorial Hospital’s Indigenous wellness services played an important role connecting Indigenous patients with cultural supports, the hospital was still not effectively bringing Indigenous healing into hospital care. Participants suggested that structural factors (i.e., policy and governance decisions) and deeply rooted forces (i.e., racism, colonialism, and biomedical dominance) underlie the delivery of care at Stanton Territorial Hospital and inhibit Indigenous and biomedical collaboration. Participants’ responses also revealed three models for how Indigenous healing and biomedical hospital care could successfully work together: (1) the integration model; (2) the independence model; and (3) the revisioning relationship model. The findings of this study underscore that greater structural and systemic transformations may be needed at Stanton Territorial Hospital to promote meaningful collaboration between Indigenous healing and biomedical hospital care and improve the delivery of culturally safe care for Indigenous patients.
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 | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.014 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".