Linguistic vitality improves health and wellbeing in Indigenous communities: a scoping review
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Abstract Introduction While Indigenous communities have long recognized the importance of their languages for their wellbeing, this topic has only recently received attention in scholarship, research and public policy. This scoping review synthesizes and assesses existing literature on the links between Indigenous linguistic vitality and health or wellness in English-speaking settler colonial countries (Australia, Canada, New Zealand, and the United States). Methods The JBI methodology for scoping reviews was followed by an interdisciplinary research team. Key databases searched included MEDLINE, PsycInfo, and Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature. Searches were restricted to English language literature. The last search was on February 8, 2021. Quantitative and qualitative analyses were conducted to categorize and elucidate the nature of the links reported. Results Over 10,000 records were reviewed and 262 met the inclusion criteria – 70% academic and 30% gray literature. The largest number of studies focus on Canadian contexts. 78% of the original research studies report only supportive links between Indigenous languages and health, while 98% of the literature reviews report supportive links. Linguistic vitality tends to support health and wellness outcomes, while the diminishment of languages is associated with worse health. The most prevalent links with linguistic vitality are healthcare outcomes, overall health and healing, and mental, cognitive, and psychological health and development. The results of the remaining original research studies were mixed (10%), statistically non-significant (6%), adverse (5%) and neutral (1%). Conclusions The results of this scoping review suggest that linguistic vitality is a determinant of health for Indigenous peoples in the contexts studied. Recommendations for harnessing the healing effects of language include increasing tangible support to language programs, delivering linguistically tailored health care and promotion, and advancing knowledge through funding relevant community-engaged research and education. Article Highlights Our interdisciplinary authorship team conducted a scoping review involving the screening of nearly 10,000 publications. 262 academic and grey literature reports were published between 1949-2019 which had a central focus on exploring the links between Indigenous languages and health. 78% of original research studies and 98% of reviews report exclusively supportive links between linguistic vitality and the health and wellness of Indigenous peoples. Key areas linked to health include healthcare outcomes, overall health and healing, and mental, cognitive, and psychological health and development. Linguistic vitality is a determinant of health for Indigenous peoples and should be leveraged through supporting language programs, delivering linguistically tailored care, and funding community-engaged research and education.
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 | 0,016 | 0,061 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,004 | 0,004 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,010 | 0,009 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,002 | 0,002 |
| Communication savante | 0,005 | 0,003 |
| Science ouverte | 0,002 | 0,003 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,003 | 0,002 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,005 | 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 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 ».