Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis: Prevalence of Neurodevelopmental Disorders Among Indigenous Children
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Objective: To summarize epidemiological evidence on the prevalence of neurodevelopmental disorders (NDDs) among Indigenous children in Australia Canada, New Zealand, and the United States compared to that of non-Indigenous children. Method: Comprehensive searches in 5 electronic databases were performed to identify studies evaluating the prevalence of NDDs among Indigenous and non-Indigenous children in Australia, Canada, New Zealand, and the United States. Unadjusted pooled odds ratios (pOR) with 95% confidence intervals were calculated in random-effects meta-analysis by outcome and Indigenous group. Results: From 1,274 non-duplicate citations identified, 12 studies were included in the review. Overall, cohort, ecological, and cross-sectional studies had moderate-to-high risk of bias. Meta-analysis showed no differences in the prevalence of attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) between American Indian/Alaska Native (AI/AN) children and White children (pOR = 1.02, 95% CI = 0.79, 1.33). In addition, there were no differences in the prevalence of autism spectrum disorder (ASD) between Australian Aboriginal children and non-Aboriginal children (pOR = 0.43; 95% CI = 0.11, 1.58). Non-Indigenous children were found to have higher ASD prevalence compared to Indigenous children in Canada. Some evidence suggests a greater burden of intellectual disabilities affecting Indigenous children in Australia, New Zealand, and the United States, and specific learning disorders among AI/AN children in the United States. Conclusion: Limited evidence suggests a difference in prevalence for specific NDD between Indigenous children and non-Indigenous children in countries with similar colonial histories. More epidemiological research adopting an Indigenous lens in the screening and assessment of NDD is required to better understand the burden of NDDs in Indigenous children. Diversity & Inclusion Statement: One or more of the authors of this paper self-identifies as a member of one or more historically underrepresented racial and/or ethnic groups in science. We actively worked to promote sex and gender balance in our author group. While citing references scientifically relevant for this work, we also actively worked to promote inclusion of historically underrepresented racial and/or ethnic groups in science in our reference list. We actively worked to promote inclusion of historically underrepresented racial and/or ethnic groups in science in our author group. Study preregistration information: Prevalence of Neurodevelopmental Disorders among Indigenous Children: A Systematic Review; https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/view/CRD42021238669.
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 distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,002 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
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 tête enseignante, 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 ».