Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36911983›Full record

ArticleJournal of telemedicine and telecare2024

Scoping review of telehealth use by Indigenous populations from Australia, Canada, New Zealand, and the United States.

Débora Petry Moecke, Travis Holyk, Madelaine Beckett, Sunaina Chopra, Polina Petlitsyna, Mirha Girt, Ashley Kirkham, Ivan Kamurasi, Justin Turner, Donovan Sneddon and 5 more

Abstract readScoping Review
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of telemedicine and telecare, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 32 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
32citing papers in PubMed
–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

32 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Healthcare delivery in the arctic-telehealth prospects.International journal of circumpolar health · 2025
    Review
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

15 authors.

Débora Petry MoeckeUniversity of British Columbia (UBC), Vancouver, Canada.ORCID 0000-0003-0905-9722
Travis HolykCarrier Sekani Family Services, Prince George, Canada.
Madelaine BeckettUniversity of British Columbia (UBC), Vancouver, Canada.
Sunaina ChopraUniversity of British Columbia (UBC), Vancouver, Canada.
Polina PetlitsynaUniversity of British Columbia (UBC), Vancouver, Canada.
Mirha GirtFaculty of Medicine, University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia.
Ashley KirkhamUniversity of British Columbia (UBC), Vancouver, Canada.
Ivan KamurasiUniversity of British Columbia (UBC), Vancouver, Canada.
Justin TurnerUniversity of British Columbia (UBC), Vancouver, Canada.ORCID 0000-0002-2332-2091
Donovan SneddonUniversity of British Columbia (UBC), Vancouver, Canada.
Madeline FriesenUniversity of British Columbia (UBC), Vancouver, Canada.
Ian McDonaldUniversity of British Columbia (UBC), Vancouver, Canada.
Nathan Denson-CampUniversity of British Columbia (UBC), Vancouver, Canada.
Stephanie CrosbieUniversity of British Columbia (UBC), Vancouver, Canada.
Pat G CampUniversity of British Columbia (UBC), Vancouver, Canada.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionTelehealth has the potential to address health disparities experienced by Indigenous people, especially in remote areas. This scoping review aims to map and characterize the existing evidence on telehealth use by Indigenous people and explore the key concepts for effective use, cultural safety, and building therapeutic relationships.

methodsA search for published and gray literature, written in English, and published between 2000 and 2022 was completed in 17 electronic databases. Two reviewers independently screened retrieved records for eligibility. For included articles, data were extracted, categorized, and analyzed. Synthesis of findings was performed narratively.

resultsA total of 321 studies were included. The most popular type of telehealth used was mHealth (44%), and the most common health focuses of the telehealth interventions were mental health (26%) and diabetes/diabetic retinopathy (13%). Frequently described barriers to effective telehealth use included concerns about privacy/confidentiality and limited internet availability; meanwhile, telehealth-usage facilitators included cultural relevance and community engagement. Although working in collaboration with Indigenous communities was the most frequently reported way to achieve cultural safety, 40% of the studies did not report Indigenous involvement. Finally, difficulty to establish trusting therapeutic relationships was a major concern raised about telehealth, and evidence suggests that having the first visit-in-person is a potential way to address this issue.

conclusionThis comprehensive review identified critical factors to guide the development of culturally-informed telehealth services to meet the needs of Indigenous people and to achieve equitable access and positive health outcomes.

Indexed as

TelemedicineAustraliaCanadaHealth Services, IndigenousHumansIndigenous PeoplesNew ZealandUnited Statescultural appropriatenesscultural safetyIndigenous healthtelehealththerapeutic relationshipsVirtual care

Identifiers

PMID36911983
PMCPMC11411853

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.