Counting what counts: A systematic scoping review of instruments used in primary healthcare services to measure the wellbeing of Indigenous children and youth
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Abstract Background Primary healthcare services have principal responsibility for providing child and youth wellbeing and mental health services, but they have lacked appropriate measurement instruments to assess the wellbeing of Indigenous children and youth or to evaluate the effectiveness of programs and health service initiatives designed to address their needs. This literature review was conceived and conducted to respond to this identified need by assessing the availability and characteristics of measurement instruments that have been applied in primary healthcare services in Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Norway, and the United States (CANNZUS countries) to assess the wellbeing of Indigenous children and youth. Wellbeing was defined as a relational phenomenon encompassing individual, collective, cultural and spiritual domains. Method 15 databases and 12 websites were searched in December 2017 and again in October 2021. Pre-defined search terms pertained to Indigenous children and youth, CANNZUS country names, wellbeing measurement, and primary healthcare services. PRISMA guidelines were followed, with eligibility criteria guiding screening of titles and abstracts, and selected full-text papers. Documented measurement instruments were then categorised according to four criteria that were deemed most likely to represent Indigenous child and youth experiences of wellbeing: adherence to relational strength-based constructs of Indigenous wellbeing, development for Indigenous populations, administration by child/youth self-report, and reliability and validity. Results 17 publications (nine studies) were found, that described the development and/or use by primary healthcare services of 14 measurement instruments, employed across 27 applications. Four/14 measurement instruments focused solely on strength-based wellbeing concepts but none included all Indigenous wellbeing domains, four were developed specifically for Indigenous populations, six were administered through child/youth self-report, and 11 were reliable and valid. Discussion The measurement instrument that most closely adhered to our desirability criteria was the Canadian Aboriginal Children’s Health and Well-Being Measure (ACHWM). Other measurement instruments rated with 2–3 desirability criteria were the Children’s Global Assessment Scale (C-GAS), Outcome Rating Scale (ORS), Session Rating Scale (SRS), Strong Souls, Westerman Aboriginal Symptoms Checklist Youth (WASC-Y) and the YouthCHAT. This review supports several Australian research studies that are currently underway to develop measures/ screening tools to assess the wellbeing of Indigenous adolescents.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,045 | 0,190 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,003 | 0,003 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,014 | 0,011 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,037 | 0,035 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,002 | 0,003 |
| Communication savante | 0,009 | 0,009 |
| Science ouverte | 0,005 | 0,006 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,004 | 0,002 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,005 | 0,001 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».