ArticlePloS one2025
Community engagement in Indigenous food systems contamination studies: A systematic scoping review.
Article in PloS one, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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.
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.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionIndigenous food systems are vital for maintaining cultural practices, physical and mental well-being, and community health. However, these systems are increasingly threatened by environmental contamination, exacerbating health disparities. Despite growing recognition of the importance of Indigenous knowledge in environmental health research, there is limited systematic evidence on how well community engagement is incorporated into studies investigating contamination of Indigenous food systems. This scoping review aims to assess reported practices for engaging Indigenous Peoples and the use of study results to support community-driven initiatives.
methodsA systematic scoping review was conducted on peer-reviewed articles published between January 2010 and July 2024 that assessed contamination in Indigenous food systems with a human health dimension. The search included three databases: Web of Science, Scopus, and CAB Direct, yielding 2,203 articles. After applying inclusion and exclusion criteria, 202 studies were retained for final analysis. Data were extracted on study characteristics, community engagement strategies, Indigenous knowledge integration, and reported use of study results by Indigenous Peoples. The analysis was conducted using the PRISMA framework.
resultsMost studies (97%) employed quantitative methods, with fewer incorporating qualitative or mixed-method approaches. While community engagement was mentioned in about two-thirds of the studies, the depth of engagement varied significantly. A quarter of studies included Indigenous authors and only a small proportion reported meaningful collaboration with Indigenous Peoples throughout the research process. Studies with Indigenous authorship were more likely to report community engagement activities and utilization of results for broader community initiatives.
conclusionThe increasing recognition of Indigenous and traditional knowledge within academia must extend beyond intellectual discourse to address health disparities. Indigenous Peoples have long advocated for self-determination and engagement in research conducted in their communities. As part of broader reconciliation efforts with Indigenous Peoples the environmental health scientific community must reciprocate these efforts by integrating discussions into scientific literature about community participation and implementation of study results. This review highlights the need for robust and meaningful community engagement in environmental health research related to Indigenous food systems.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.