Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38424631›Full record

ArticleSystematic reviews2024

Indigenous approaches to health assessment: a scoping review protocol.

Nabina Sharma, Jennifer D Walker, Elizabeth Wenghofer, Taima Moeke-Pickering, Jeannette Lindenbach

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Systematic reviews, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing 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

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Measuring Wellness Through Indigenous Partnerships: A Scoping Review.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2024
    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

5 authors.

Nabina SharmaSchool of Kinesiology and Health Sciences, Laurentian University, Sudbury, ON, Canada. nsharma2@laurentian.ca.ORCID 0000-0003-0358-6185
Jennifer D WalkerDepartment of Health Research Methods, Evidence and Impact, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada.
Elizabeth WenghoferSchool of Kinesiology and Health Sciences, Laurentian University, Sudbury, ON, Canada.
Taima Moeke-PickeringSchool of Indigenous Relations, Laurentian University, Sudbury, ON, Canada.
Jeannette LindenbachSchool of Nursing, Laurentian University, Sudbury, ON, Canada.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundHealth assessment tools developed using mainstream or Western concepts have been widely used in clinical practice worldwide. However, even culturally adapted or culturally based tools may not be relevant in other social contexts if they are grounded in Western beliefs and perspectives. The application of mainstream assessment tools, when used in Indigenous populations, can lead to the inappropriate application of normative data and inaccurate or biased diagnosis of conditions as Indigenous concepts of health differ from Western biomedical concepts of health. Thus, considering the need for culturally meaningful, sensitive, safe, and unbiased health assessment approaches and instruments over recent years, tools have been developed or adapted by and with Indigenous populations in Australia, Aotearoa/New Zealand, Canada, and the United States. However, there is no existing systematic or scoping review to identify the methods and approaches used in adapting or developing health assessment tools for use with the Indigenous population in Australia, Aotearoa/New Zealand, Canada, and the United States.

methodsIn response to these gaps, we are working with a First Nations Community Advisory Group in Northern Ontario, Canada, to undertake a scoping review following the 2020 JBI methodology for scoping reviews. A systematic search will be conducted in PubMed, APA PsychINFO, CINAHL, MEDLINE, Web of Science, Bibliography of Native North Americans, Australian Indigenous Health info data set, and Indigenous Health Portal. Two reviewers will independently screen all abstracts and full-text articles for inclusion using criteria co-developed with an advisory group. We will chart the extracted information and summarize and synthesize the data. The summarized findings will be presented to a Community Advisory Group, including First Nations community partners, an Elder, and community members, and their feedback will be incorporated into the discussion section of the scoping review. DISCUSSION: This scoping review involves iterative consultation with the Indigenous and non-Indigenous scholars, First Nations Community Advisory Group, and community partners throughout the research process. This review aims to summarize the evidence on standard ethical approaches and practices used in Indigenous research while adapting or developing health assessment tools. It will inform the larger study focused on developing an Indigenous Functional Assessment tool. Further, it will seek whether the Indigenous ways of knowing and equitable participation of Indigenous people and communities are incorporated in the Indigenous research process. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: Open Science Framework https://osf.io/yznwk .

Indexed as

Indigenous PeoplesPopulation HealthAustraliaAustralian Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander PeoplesCanadaHumansNew ZealandScoping Reviews as TopicUnited StatesCulturally safeHealth assessmentIndigenous approachesIndigenous healthIndigenous knowledgeScoping review

Identifiers

PMID38424631
PMCPMC10903070

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.