Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29795554›Full record

SynthesisPloS one2018

Who is research serving? A systematic realist review of circumpolar environment-related Indigenous health literature.

Jen Jones, Ashlee Cunsolo, Sherilee L Harper

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in PloS one, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 19 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
19citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

19 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Key considerations for applying intersectionality theory to partner and stakeholder engagement in public health.Canadian journal of public health = Revue canadienne de sante publique · 2025
    Article
  4. Clam research in Nunavut: A scoping review of the literature.One health (Amsterdam, Netherlands) · 2025
    Review
  5. The Role of Power in Co-Approaches to Health Research: Insights From Spain and the United Kingdom With a Rapid Review of Reviews.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2025
    Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Jen JonesDepartment of Geography, University of Guelph, Guelph, Ontario, Canada.ORCID 0000-0001-7913-2759
Ashlee CunsoloLabrador Institute, Memorial University, Happy Valley-Goose Bay, Newfoundland Labrador, Canada.
Sherilee L HarperDepartment of Population Medicine, University of Guelph, Guelph, Ontario, Canada.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundAddressing factors leading to health disparities in the Circumpolar North require approaches that consider and address the social determinants of health including on-going colonization. Today, colonization and related policies and processes, continue to manifest in the marginalization of Indigenous knowledge, particularly its use in research; however, Indigenous populations have moved from being research subjects to leaders and consumers of environmental health research. Given the tensions that exist between how health research is conducted, how the results are mobilized, and who has control and access to the results, we examine how peer-reviewed environment-related Indigenous health research in the Circumpolar North is serving the needs of Indigenous communities, governments, and organizations.

methodsA modified systematic-realist literature review was conducted. Three databases were searched for peer-reviewed literature published from 2000 to 2015. Articles were included if the research focused on the intersection of the environment and health in Northern Canada and/or Alaska. A total of 960 unique records were screened for relevance, and 210 articles were analysed.

resultsOf these relevant articles, 19% discussed how Indigenous peoples were engaged in the research. There was a significant increase in reporting participatory, community-based methods over time; the proportion of articles reporting community-engagement varied by research topic; quantitative research articles were significantly less likely to report community-engaged methods; and most articles did not clearly report how the results were shared with the community.

conclusionThe results raise a number of questions for the field of Circumpolar environment-related Indigenous health research, including whether or how authors of peer-reviewed literature should (or should not) be obliged to describe how research is serving Northern Indigenous communities. The results are intended to stimulate further conversations and bridge perceived dichotomies of quantitative/qualitative, Western/Indigenous, and empirical/community driven research approaches, as well as underlying assumptions that frame health research.

Indexed as

Databases, BibliographicEnvironmental HealthHealth Services, IndigenousResearch SubjectsBiomedical ResearchHumansPopulation GroupsPublicationsSocial EnvironmentTranslational Research, Biomedical

Identifiers

PMID29795554
PMCPMC5993119

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.