Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36991410›Full record

ReviewBMC health services research2023

Understanding virtual primary healthcare with Indigenous populations: a rapid evidence review.

Kayla M Fitzpatrick, Meagan Ody, Danika Goveas, Stephanie Montesanti, Paige Campbell, Kathryn MacDonald, Lynden Crowshoe, Sandra Campbell, Pamela Roach

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in BMC health services research, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 20 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
20citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Observational
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  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

9 authors.

Kayla M FitzpatrickSchool of Public Health, University of Alberta, Edmonton, AB, Canada.
Meagan OdyDepartment of Community Health Sciences, University of Calgary, Calgary, AB, Canada.
Danika GoveasSchool of Public Health, University of Alberta, Edmonton, AB, Canada.
Stephanie MontesantiSchool of Public Health, University of Alberta, Edmonton, AB, Canada.
Paige CampbellDepartment of Community Health Sciences, University of Calgary, Calgary, AB, Canada.
Kathryn MacDonaldSchool of Public Health, University of Alberta, Edmonton, AB, Canada.
Lynden CrowshoeDepartment of Family Medicine, University of Calgary, Calgary, AB, Canada.
Sandra CampbellJohn W. Scott Health Sciences Library, University of Alberta, Edmonton, AB, Canada.
Pamela RoachDepartment of Family Medicine, University of Calgary, Calgary, AB, Canada. pamela.roach@ucalgary.ca.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundVirtual care has become an increasingly useful tool for the virtual delivery of care across the globe. With the unexpected emergence of COVID-19 and ongoing public health restrictions, it has become evident that the delivery of high-quality telemedicine is critical to ensuring the health and wellbeing of Indigenous peoples, especially those living in rural and remote communities.

methodsWe conducted a rapid evidence review from August to December 2021 to understand how high quality Indigenous primary healthcare is defined in virtual modalities. After completing data extraction and quality appraisal, a total of 20 articles were selected for inclusion. The following question was used to guide the rapid review: How is high quality Indigenous primary healthcare defined in virtual modalities?

resultsWe discuss key limitations to the delivery of virtual care, including the increasing cost of technology, lack of accessibility, challenges with digital literacy, and language barriers. This review further yielded four main themes that highlight Indigenous virtual primary healthcare quality: (1) limitations and barriers of virtual primary healthcare, (2) Indigenous-centred virtual primary healthcare, (3) virtual Indigenous relationality, (4) collaborative approaches to ensuring holistic virtual care. DISCUSSION: For virtual care to be Indigenous-centred, Indigenous leadership and users need to be partners in the development, implementation and evaluation of the intervention, service or program. In terms of virtual models of care, time must be allocated to educate Indigenous partners on digital literacy, virtual care infrastructure, benefits and limitations. Relationality and culture must be prioritized as well as digital health equity.

conclusionThese findings highlight important considerations for strengthening virtual primary healthcare approaches to meet the needs of Indigenous peoples worldwide.

Indexed as

COVID-19Health Services, IndigenousTelemedicineHumansPrimary Health CareIndigenous healthIndigenous primary healthcarePrimary healthcare qualityTelehealthVirtual care

Identifiers

PMID36991410
PMCPMC10054202

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.