Co-Designing a Chatbot for Culturally Competent Clinical Communication: Experience and Reflections

Sandro Radovanovi\'c; Shuangyu Li

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 18 references

Co-Designing a Chatbot for Culturally Competent Clinical Communication: Experience and Reflections

T0 review · 3 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read The paper claims that a chatbot simulating culturally diverse patients can give medical students useful, low-pressure practice in empathy and interpersonal understanding, with automatic feedback structured by the ACT Cultural Competence…

desk verdict An honest, well-scoped co-design experience report with reusable artifacts, whose quantitative claims lean on an unvalidated LLM grader and a 29-interaction pilot. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.11393 v1 pith:I7HSYZM4 submitted 2025-05-18 cs.HC cs.CY

Sandro Radovanović , Shuangyu Li This is my paper · ORCID

classification cs.HCcs.CY

keywords culturalcompetenceclinicalcommunicationtrainingmedicaleducationchatbotsimulatedpatientslargelanguagemodelACTemotionanalysis

verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The paper reports on the co-design and pilot of a text-based chatbot meant to train medical students in culturally competent clinical communication. Its central, deliberately exploratory claim is that such a chatbot can create useful low-pressure practice opportunities: in 29 pilot conversations, students reflected on their communication and scored highest on empathy and interpersonal understanding, while struggling more with historical context and systemic change. The authors argue this points toward a scalable complement to actor-based simulated-patient training, which is resource-intensive and hard to schedule. They label the work research in progress and do not claim experimental proof.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the ACT Cultural Competence Model, a three-domain framework covering Activating Awareness, Connecting Relations, and Transforming into Culturally Appropriate Care, adapted into a Culturally Competent Communication Guide with nine scored components. Two large-language-model agents carry the interaction: a Virtual Patient, configured to be emotionally variable and scenario-dependent, and an Assessment Agent that assigns 1-to-5 scores and qualitative feedback on each rubric component. A separate pretrained emotion classifier produces the trajectory plots that let teachers see how student messages are emotionally perceived. The framework decides what counts as good communication, the Virtual Patient generates the practice scenario, and the Assessment Agent turns conversation text into scores and feedback.

What would settle it

Take the 29 recorded transcripts, strip scenario labels, and have three expert raters independently score them on the same nine rubric components; if the automated grader disagrees with the experts at near-chance levels, or its scores simply track the language in its own prompts, the reported pattern of strong empathy and weak historical context would be an artifact of the grader rather than a fact about the students.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the discovery is that a chatbot with two roles—a virtual patient and an automated assessor—can carry realistic short consultations about culturally sensitive topics and give structured feedback that students find useful. Across 29 conversations, students performed best on relational competencies such as empathy and interpersonal understanding and weakest on historical context and systemic change, and emotion trajectories showed student curiosity and caring alongside a deliberately vulnerable virtual patient. The authors emphasize that the tool helped reinforce self-awareness, adaptability, and empathy, and that students valued the consistent, judgment-free format, but also note that the virtual patients were overly agreeable and non-verbal cues were absent.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the chatbot's automatic 1-to-5 scores actually measure cultural competence; the pilot compares those scores across scenarios without ever checking them against human expert ratings.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

If the experience generalizes, medical schools can offer repeatable, on-demand practice in culturally sensitive consultations without scheduling actors, which is especially relevant for under-resourced settings.
Automated feedback aligned with the ACT framework can surface cohort-level patterns, such as recurrent difficulty with systemic and historical context, and help instructors set teaching priorities.
Student reflections imply concrete design changes: describe non-verbal cues in text, make virtual patients less compliant, and reduce repetitive feedback across repeated interactions.
Emotion trajectory analysis can be embedded in debriefing so students see how their curiosity and caring shift over the course of a consultation.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

A testable extension would be to validate the automated grader against expert ratings before any between-scenario comparison; the pilot's quantitative patterns are uninterpretable without that check.
The students' complaint that historical-context feedback felt over-applied suggests the fixed rubric may train students to mention historical context even when clinically irrelevant; the paper does not address this.
Because text removes tone and body language, the chatbot may be better at rehearsing reflection than at rehearsing live rapport; the authors' planned voice-based version could test this directly.
A future controlled study could randomize students to chatbot practice versus standardized-patient practice and compare communication outcomes on human-rated clinical encounters.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Two things to know. First, this is an honest, clearly-scoped experience report, not a controlled evaluation; it says so itself. Second, the paper's most defensible asset is the concrete co-design output—the CCCG rubric (Appendix A), four scenarios (Appendix B), and the full two-agent prompt text (Appendix C)—which other medical schools could adapt or critique directly.

What's actually new: applying a GPT-4o patient and a GoEmotions-style emotion classifier to cultural-competence training is incremental in technique, but the CCCG operationalization of the ACT model is a real, reusable artifact, and the pilot observations (29 consultations) are a legitimate starting point. The open-ended student reflections are the most informative data, and they broadly support the modest claim that the chatbot offered useful reflection opportunities, particularly for empathy and low-pressure practice.

Where I'd push back. The quantitative section is the weakest part. The LLM Assessment Agent's 1–5 scores are treated as measures of student competence with no validation against expert human raters, no inter-rater reliability, and no error analysis. The bar-chart patterns—high empathy, low historical context—could largely be the rubric speaking through the model, especially since the same researchers tuned both the rubric and the prompts. The claim of 'no significant differences between scenarios' is presented without any inferential statistics; with 29 complete responses, that phrase should not appear without a test or a clear caveat. And the conclusion's 'helped reinforce' goes beyond what a no-control, no-comparison pilot can support. There is also a small internal inconsistency: Appendix A's Effective Communication indicator asks the assessor to look for eye contact and nodding, which a text-only medium never shows; the actual assessment prompt in Appendix C doesn't carry that over, but the rubric as published would be confusing to a reader trying to apply it.

None of this kills the paper, because the authors explicitly frame it as research in progress and their own limitations section names most of these issues. But the quantitative presentation should be relabeled as descriptive and exploratory, and the conclusion tempered to 'students reported' rather than 'the chatbot helped.'

Who gets value: medical educators working on scalable communication training, and researchers building LLM-based formative assessment. It deserves peer review—it's a serious effort with useful artifacts and honest reporting—but I'd send it back for a revision that either validates the grader or cuts the inferential language.

Referee Report

3 major / 6 minor

Summary. This paper describes the co-design and pilot deployment of a text-based GPT-4o chatbot intended to train medical students in culturally competent clinical communication, grounded in the ACT Cultural Competence model and operationalized through a Culturally Competent Communication Guide (CCCG). The chatbot combines a Virtual Patient agent with an LLM-based Assessment Agent that produces 1-5 scores across CCCG domains and narrative feedback, and the authors also apply a GoEmotions classifier to analyze emotional dynamics. A pilot at a UK medical school yielded 29 recorded interactions across four scenarios; the paper reports average scores by domain and scenario, emotion distributions and trajectories, and a thematic summary of open-ended student survey responses. The authors explicitly label the work as research in progress and conclude, in the abstract, that the chatbot offered useful opportunities for reflection around empathy and interpersonal understanding, with historical context and systemic change emerging as more challenging areas.

Significance. If the main claims were fully supported, the contribution would be a low-cost, scalable supplement to standardized-patient training for cultural communication, with particular value in under-resourced settings. The paper's strengths include an honest research-in-progress framing, a clearly described co-design process involving a medical educator, a machine-learning specialist, and students, and the inclusion of full chatbot prompts and scenario descriptions in the appendices. The open-ended survey data provide genuinely user-grounded, practical insights about perceived usefulness and about concrete design weaknesses (repetitive feedback, missing non-verbal cues, overly agreeable virtual patients), which are valuable for the emerging literature on AI-based communication training. At present, however, the quantitative results are not validated as measures of cultural competence, so the paper's evidentiary weight rests mainly on the qualitative self-reports, which limits the scope of what can be reliably concluded at this stage.

major comments (3)

[§3 (Feedback and Assessment); §4, Figs. 3-4] The validity of the LLM-based Assessment Agent's 1-5 scores is the load-bearing assumption behind Figures 3 and 4, but the paper reports no validation of this agent as a measure of cultural-communication competence: there is no comparison with human expert raters, no inter-rater reliability, no error analysis, and no ground-truth benchmark. Because the prompts and evaluation logic were authored by the same team that designed the chatbot (Section 3), the score patterns partly reflect the designers' rubric expectations rather than an independently verified property of student performance. Consequently, the Section 4 statements that students are strong in empathy and interpersonal understanding but weaker in historical context and systemic change should be presented as properties of the automated scoring tool, not as established facts about student competence. I recommend adding a small validation substudy (e.g., two human raters scoring a sample of the same transcripts, with agreement reported) or explicitly and consistently reframing these analyses as 'tool scores' rather than as outcome evidence.
[Appendix A (Effective Communication); §3 (Chatbot Design)] The assessment rubric contains an internal inconsistency: in the Effective Communication criteria it instructs the assessor to look for 'eye contact and use affirmative gestures such as non-verbal cues like nodding and smiling,' but the entire interaction is text-based, so the Assessment Agent cannot observe the behaviors it is asked to score. The rubric language also repeatedly refers to 'debate' and 'argument' (e.g., in the Historical Context and Systemic Change criteria), suggesting the evaluation template was adapted from an in-person debate setting rather than designed for text-based clinical consultations. This reduces the face validity of the CCCG as an operationalization of the ACT model for the chatbot medium and should be corrected (or explicitly justified) in a revision.
[§4 (Results); §5 (Conclusions)] The paper's quantitative conclusions are not supported by the reported analysis. The sentence 'there were no significant differences in performance between the scenarios' (Section 4) is made without reporting any inferential statistic, and the dataset of 29 interactions has an unreported number of students, with up to two interactions per student per scenario, leaving the independence of observations unclear. Similarly, the Section 5 statement that the chatbot 'helped reinforce self-awareness, adaptability, and empathy' is a causal claim that the pilot design cannot support, since there is no pre/post measurement, no comparison condition, and no validated outcome instrument. The paper's own open-ended data show that students perceived benefits, which is a legitimate and useful finding in its own right; I recommend restricting the conclusions to reported perception and descriptive tool output, and adding the necessary statistical details (sample size, number of unique students, and either inferential tests with effect sizes or an explicit statement that no inferential claims are made) if the quantitative figures are retained.

minor comments (6)

[§2.1] There is a typographical error: 'namelyintrapersonal' should be 'namely intrapersonal'.
[§4] The sentence about conversation length reads 'while some of lasted for 43 iterations' and should be reworded for grammatical completeness.
[Figures 3-4] The figures do not show error bars, sample sizes, or the number of unique students; please add these or state explicitly that the plots are descriptive aggregates.
[§2.4] The section uses both 'Culturally Competent Communication Guide' and 'Cultural Competence Conversational Guide (CCCG)'; the terminology should be unified.
[Appendix C] The prompts contain LaTeX spacing artifacts (e.g., 't o s i m u l a t e c l i n i c a l communication'), which make them difficult to read; please present them in clean, readable form.
[§2.4] The reference to 'BERT-based models' is vague; the paper later uses a RoBERTa-based GoEmotions classifier, so the model family should be identified consistently at first mention.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the paper is an explicitly preliminary experience report whose central reflection claim rests on student open-ended responses, not on a derived quantity that reduces to its inputs.

full rationale

The paper does not claim a first-principles derivation or a validated predictive result; it explicitly labels itself 'Research in Progress' and says 'we did not follow a formal experimental design.' The chatbot's ACT framework comes from a published BEME Guide (Li et al., 2023), which is an external meta-ethnographic synthesis rather than an unverified self-citation; one of the present authors is a co-author, but the framework is not invoked as a uniqueness theorem or as a way to forbid alternatives. The LLM-based Assessment Agent scores are descriptive outputs of a rubric the authors wrote; Section 4's observation that students scored higher in empathy and lower in historical context is a report of those rubric-based scores, not a prediction generated from a fitted parameter. The paper itself acknowledges the need for future 'periodic evaluations comparing system-generated scores with instructor assessments,' confirming the validity limitation. The central usefulness claim—'the chatbot offered useful opportunities for students to reflect on their communication'—is grounded in open-ended survey responses and instructor-led reflection, independent of the automatic grading. The most serious concern, including Appendix A's instruction to assess non-verbal cues like eye contact in a text-only medium, is a measurement-validity threat, not a circular derivation: no claimed result is equivalent by construction to its own input. Therefore no circular step is exhibited.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No numeric fitting appears; the free parameters are hand-set LLM configuration choices. The load-bearing assumptions are domain-level: the ACT framework, the validity of automated scoring, the emotion classifier, and the realism of simulated patients. The paper does not introduce new natural entities.

free parameters (3)

Virtual Patient temperature = 0.7
Hand-chosen in Section 3 to promote variability in patient responses; affects the generated dialogues that all downstream scores and emotion analyses depend on.
Assessment Agent temperature = 0.1
Hand-chosen in Section 3 to keep grading consistent; affects all CCCG scores and qualitative feedback, yet its scoring accuracy is never validated.
Token output limits = 500 (patient), 3000 (assessment)
Hand-chosen caps in Section 3 that constrain response length and therefore the content available for evaluation and emotion analysis.

assumptions (4)

domain assumption The ACT Cultural Competence Model (Li et al., 2023) is a valid framework for structuring feedback on culturally competent communication.
The entire feedback rubric and scenario design are built on this framework (Sections 2 and Appendix A), but its validity for automated scoring is not independently established in this paper.
domain assumption LLM-generated assessments reflect actual cultural competence rather than prompt-induced language patterns.
The Assessment Agent's scores and qualitative feedback are treated as meaningful measures throughout Section 4, but no human-rater validation or reliability analysis is provided.
domain assumption The GoEmotions classifier (Demszky et al., 2020) produces valid emotion labels for these conversations.
Emotion trajectories and comparisons in Figures 5 to 7 rely on this model; the authors acknowledge potential discrepancies but do not validate it on their own data.
ad hoc to paper GPT-4o virtual patients behave realistically enough for communication practice.
The design assigns emotional traits and difficulty levels to simulate realistic patients, but the authors note virtual patients were overly agreeable and lacked nonverbal cues, so the realism assumption is only partially met.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Co-Designing a Chatbot for Culturally Competent Clinical Communication: Experience and Reflections." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/I7HSYZM4

@misc{pith2026250611393,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Co-Designing a Chatbot for Culturally Competent Clinical Communication: Experience and Reflections},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/I7HSYZM4}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.11393}
}

read the original abstract

Clinical communication skills are essential for preparing healthcare professionals to provide equitable care across cultures. However, traditional training with simulated patients can be resource intensive and difficult to scale, especially in under-resourced settings. In this project, we explore the use of an AI-driven chatbot to support culturally competent communication training for medical students. The chatbot was designed to simulate realistic patient conversations and provide structured feedback based on the ACT Cultural Competence model. We piloted the chatbot with a small group of third-year medical students at a UK medical school in 2024. Although we did not follow a formal experimental design, our experience suggests that the chatbot offered useful opportunities for students to reflect on their communication, particularly around empathy and interpersonal understanding. More challenging areas included addressing systemic issues and historical context. Although this early version of the chatbot helped surface some interesting patterns, limitations were also clear, such as the absence of nonverbal cues and the tendency for virtual patients to be overly agreeable. In general, this reflection highlights both the potential and the current limitations of AI tools in communication training. More work is needed to better understand their impact and improve the learning experience.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.11393 by the authors.

**Figure 2.** Chatbot experimental flow design Chatbot Communication. The students were first introduced to the ACT framework and instructed to test their communication skills using the chatbot. The learning process involved the following steps: • The students selected a clinical communication scenario to explore, as well as the complexity level. If unsure, they were encouraged to choose one and read its description. Each scenari… view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** Average scores across CCCG elements 43 iterations (22 student iterations and 21 virtual patient messages). Conversations were recorded and stored with appropriate anonymization to ensure privacy [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_3.png] view at source ↗

Figures from the paper (4 more)

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: CCCG scores per scenario However, we are more interested in how students handle different culturally diverse patient profiles (see [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_4.png]

**Figure 5.** Figure 5: Student vs. AI Emotions Compared among scenarios ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_5.png]

**Figure 6.** Figure 6: Emotion differences by scenario [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_6.png]

**Figure 7.** Figure 7: Emotions though time The curiosity emotion trajectory shows a higher and more fluctuating intensity in students, peaking early and gradually declining as the conversation progresses. This indicates that students have a exploratory phase early in the discussion to find …

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

18 extracted references · 16 canonical work pages

[1]

G. K. Hart, N. Hosking, J. G. Todd, and L. Martin. Technology based challenges of informal clinical communication in an australian tertiary referral hospital–a mixed methods assessment of the need for change. medRxiv, 2024. Preprint

work page 2024
[2]

Svyntozelska, N

O. Svyntozelska, N. R. E. Suarez, J. Demers, M. Dugas, and A. LeBlanc. Socioeconomic and demographic factors influencing interpersonal communication between patients with chronic conditions and family physicians: A systematic review. Patient Education and Counseling, page 108548, 2024

work page 2024
[3]

C. M. Rachwal, T. Langer, B. P. Trainor, M. A. Bell, D. M. Browning, and E. C. Meyer. Navigating communication challenges in clinical practice: A new approach to team education. Critical Care Nurse, 38 0 (6): 0 15--22, 2018

work page 2018
[4]

A. D. Napier, C. Ancarno, B. Butler, J. Calabrese, A. Chater, H. Chatterjee, and K. Woolf. Culture and health. The Lancet, 384 0 (9954): 0 1607--1639, 2014

work page 2014
[5]

Linder, L

U. Linder, L. Hartmann, M. Schatz, S. Hetjens, I. Pechlivanidou, and J. J. Kaden. Employing simulated participants to develop communication skills in medical education: A systematic review. Simulation in Healthcare, pages 10--1097, 2024

work page 2024
[6]

S. Li, K. Miles, R. E. George, C. Ertubey, P. Pype, and J. Liu. A critical review of cultural competence frameworks and models in medical and health professional education: A meta-ethnographic synthesis: Beme guide no. 79. Medical Teacher, 45 0 (10): 0 1085--1107, 2023

work page 2023
[7]

R. J. Castillo and K. L. Guo. A framework for cultural competence in health care organizations. The Health Care Manager, 30 0 (3): 0 205--214, 2011

work page 2011
[8]

L. M. Wesp, V. Scheer, A. Ruiz, K. Walker, J. Weitzel, L. Shaw, and L. Mkandawire-Valhmu. An emancipatory approach to cultural competency: the application of critical race, postcolonial, and intersectionality theories. Advances in Nursing Science, 41 0 (4): 0 316--326, 2018

work page 2018

Show all 18 references

[9]

J. Liu, E. Gill, and S. Li. Revisiting cultural competence. The Clinical Teacher, 18 0 (2): 0 191--197, 2021

2021
[10]

Dijkman, L

B. Dijkman, L. Reehuis, and P. Roodbol. Competences for working with older people: The development and verification of the european core competence framework for health and social care professionals working with older people. Educational Gerontology, 43 0 (10): 0 483--497, 2017

2017
[11]

A. F. Almutairi, V. S. Dahinten, and P. Rodney. Almutairi's critical cultural competence model for a multicultural healthcare environment. Nursing Inquiry, 22 0 (4): 0 317--325, 2015

2015
[12]

Hurst, A

A. Hurst, A. Lerer, A. P. Goucher, A. Perelman, A. Ramesh, A. Clark, and I. Kivlichan. Gpt-4o system card. arXiv preprint arXiv:2410.21276, 2024

2024 arXiv
[13]

Demszky, D

D. Demszky, D. Movshovitz-Attias, J. Ko, A. Cowen, G. Nemade, and S. Ravi. Goemotions: A dataset of fine-grained emotions. arXiv preprint arXiv:2005.00547, 2020

2005 arXiv
[14]

M. R. Dahm, M. Williams, and C. Crock. ‘more than words’–interpersonal communication, cognitive bias and diagnostic errors. Patient Education and Counseling, 105 0 (1): 0 252--256, 2022

2022
[15]

J. W. Ayers, A. Poliak, M. Dredze, E. C. Leas, Z. Zhu, J. B. Kelley, and D. M. Smith. Comparing physician and artificial intelligence chatbot responses to patient questions posted to a public social media forum. JAMA Internal Medicine, 183 0 (6): 0 589--596, 2023

2023
[16]

Babu and S

A. Babu and S. B. Boddu. Bert-based medical chatbot: Enhancing healthcare communication through natural language understanding. Exploratory Research in Clinical and Social Pharmacy, 13: 0 100419, 2024

2024
[17]

S. R. Ali, T. D. Dobbs, and I. S. Whitaker. Using a chatbot to support clinical decision-making in free flap monitoring. Journal of Plastic, Reconstructive & Aesthetic Surgery, 75 0 (7): 0 2387--2440, 2022

2022
[18]

Di Battista, J

M. Di Battista, J. Kernitsky, and S. Dibart. Artificial intelligence chatbots in patient communication: Current possibilities. International Journal of Periodontics & Restorative Dentistry, 44 0 (6), 2024

2024

Pith tools

Reviewed August 15, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

G. K. Hart, N. Hosking, J. G. Todd, and L. Martin. Technology based challenges of informal clinical communication in an australian tertiary referral hospital–a mixed methods assessment of the need for change. medRxiv, 2024. Preprint

work page 2024

[2] [2]

Svyntozelska, N

O. Svyntozelska, N. R. E. Suarez, J. Demers, M. Dugas, and A. LeBlanc. Socioeconomic and demographic factors influencing interpersonal communication between patients with chronic conditions and family physicians: A systematic review. Patient Education and Counseling, page 108548, 2024

work page 2024

[3] [3]

C. M. Rachwal, T. Langer, B. P. Trainor, M. A. Bell, D. M. Browning, and E. C. Meyer. Navigating communication challenges in clinical practice: A new approach to team education. Critical Care Nurse, 38 0 (6): 0 15--22, 2018

work page 2018

[4] [4]

A. D. Napier, C. Ancarno, B. Butler, J. Calabrese, A. Chater, H. Chatterjee, and K. Woolf. Culture and health. The Lancet, 384 0 (9954): 0 1607--1639, 2014

work page 2014

[5] [5]

Linder, L

U. Linder, L. Hartmann, M. Schatz, S. Hetjens, I. Pechlivanidou, and J. J. Kaden. Employing simulated participants to develop communication skills in medical education: A systematic review. Simulation in Healthcare, pages 10--1097, 2024

work page 2024

[6] [6]

S. Li, K. Miles, R. E. George, C. Ertubey, P. Pype, and J. Liu. A critical review of cultural competence frameworks and models in medical and health professional education: A meta-ethnographic synthesis: Beme guide no. 79. Medical Teacher, 45 0 (10): 0 1085--1107, 2023

work page 2023

[7] [7]

R. J. Castillo and K. L. Guo. A framework for cultural competence in health care organizations. The Health Care Manager, 30 0 (3): 0 205--214, 2011

work page 2011

[8] [8]

L. M. Wesp, V. Scheer, A. Ruiz, K. Walker, J. Weitzel, L. Shaw, and L. Mkandawire-Valhmu. An emancipatory approach to cultural competency: the application of critical race, postcolonial, and intersectionality theories. Advances in Nursing Science, 41 0 (4): 0 316--326, 2018

work page 2018