An overview of the literature on Pacific cultural competence in health care including definitions of Pacific cultural competence, rationale for and benefits of cultural competence, competence measures and mechanisms, role of Pacific cultural competence in service quality and recommendations for the New Zealand health and disability sector.
Purpose
This report provides an overview of the literature on Pacific cultural competence in health care and focuses on the following key areas:
- relevant definitions of Pacific cultural competence, cultural competence and other related concepts
- studies that provide a rationale for, and outline the benefits of, different Pacific cultural competence approaches
- studies relating to individual and organisational cultural competence
- competence measures and mechanisms for achievement
- the role of Pacific cultural competence in service quality
- analysis and recommendations from the literature review on actions to take in the New Zealand setting to address Pacific cultural competence issues for the health and disability sector.
Methodology
The following databases were searched for relevant peer-reviewed studies on Pacific cultural competence: Looksmart Find Articles, PLoS Medicine, HealthSTAR, Healthline, Ovid MEDLINE(R), PsycINFO, PubMed, ScienceDirect and CINAHL.
Search terms used in various combinations were: Pacific cultural competencies, benefits of cultural competency, competency and health care, minorities and cultural competency, minorities in healthcare, culturally competent practice, and Pacific health.
Internet searches using subject guides of popular search engines included Google, Netscape, Lycos and Yahoo, and these proved worthwhile because they identified the more ‘grey’ and esoteric literature.
A number of Internet sites that are linked to government agencies, professional organisations and universities were also explored. Unpublished works were also accessed through the author’s academic and professional relationships.
Feedback on drafts was sought from peer reviewers, which were identified by both the Ministry of Health and the author, and included those based in government departments, universities and non-government organisations.