What healthcare programs have been developed for the management of musculoskeletal pain in Indigenous populations? A scoping review
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
ABSTRACT Objective There is a current knowledge gap and need for a comprehensive summary of literature about the management of musculoskeletal pain for Indigenous people internationally. We aimed to summarise and appraise cultural and methodological quality of studies describing programs developed to support Indigenous peoples manage musculoskeletal pain. Design Scoping review. Data sources Systematic literature search of Medline, Embase, CINAHL, Proquest Central and Scopus from January 1993 to November 2023. Eligibility criteria Scientific literature published in English; conducted in Canada, United States of America, Australia and New Zealand; describing the development and/or implementation of programs or components of programs for Indigenous patients with musculoskeletal pain or health staff working with Indigenous patients with pain musculoskeletal pain were included. Results 23 articles met the inclusion criteria. Articles were classified into two categories: programs for patients (n=16) and programs for health staff working with Indigenous peoples (n=7). Overall methodological quality of studies was moderate-high, overall cultural quality of studies was moderate. Most programs had positive outcomes and were well received by participants. Multiple strategies, including culturally appropriate models of care and locations, were incorporated into the programs and most studies considered cultural components for the development and delivery of the programs. Conclusion Although there has been a recent increase in research for the management of musculoskeletal pain amongst Indigenous peoples it is still limited. Cultural considerations are critical for research methodology and the development and delivery of new health programs focussed on improving the health and wellbeing of Indigenous peoples with musculoskeletal pain. What is already known in this topic Indigenous peoples internationally experience an inequitable burden due to musculoskeletal pain and have reduced access to culturally safe and appropriate health programs for musculoskeletal pain. Culturally safe and appropriate healthcare programs have demonstrated positive outcomes for Indigenous peoples with other chronic disease conditions. Little is known about the western methodological or cultural rigour of research, features, or outcomes of musculoskeletal programs for Indigenous peoples. What are the new findings Programs have been developed to improve the management of musculoskeletal pain for Indigenous peoples, by providing interventions for Indigenous peoples and education training for health staff working with Indigenous peoples with musculoskeletal pain conditions. A comprehensive summary of the programs can inform Indigenous Community members, clinicians and researchers in the future development of culturally safe, appropriate and accessible programs for Indigenous peoples. Strategies for the development and delivery of health programs, such as the co-design of programs with Indigenous peoples and the implementation of programs in culturally safe locations, have resulted in positive outcomes for Indigenous peoples with musculoskeletal pain conditions. Musculoskeletal health research with Indigenous peoples needs to be of a high quality from both methodological and cultural perspective. Examples of how to conduct or appraise future studies are demonstrated.
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 | 0,021 | 0,076 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,005 | 0,005 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,014 | 0,017 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,002 | 0,002 |
| Communication savante | 0,005 | 0,005 |
| Science ouverte | 0,002 | 0,002 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,004 | 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 ».