MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1494278253 · doi:10.1186/s13104-015-1137-5

A community-based participatory research methodology to address, redress, and reassess disparities in respiratory health among First Nations

2015· article· en· W1494278253 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Punam Pahwa, Sylvia Abonyi, Chandima Karunanayake, Donna Rennie, Bonnie Janzen, Shelley Kirychuk, Joshua Lawson, Tarun Reddy Katapally, Kathleen McMullin, Jeremy Seeseequasis, Arnold Naytowhow, Louise Hagel, Roland Dyck, Mark Fenton, Ambikaipakan Senthilselvan, Vivian R. Ramsden, Malcolm King, Niels Koehncke, Gregory P. Marchildon, Lesley McBain, Thomas Smith-Windsor, Janet Smylie, Jo-Ann Episkenew, James A. Dosman

Bibliographic record

VenueBMC Research Notes · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicIndigenous Studies and Ecology
Canadian institutionsUniversity of ReginaFirst Nations University of CanadaSimon Fraser UniversityUniversity of TorontoSaskatchewan HealthUniversity of Saskatchewan
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsMedicineCommunity-based participatory researchHealth equityRedressEnvironmental healthFamily medicinePhysical therapyGerontologyPublic healthParticipatory action researchNursingPolitical scienceEconomic growth

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: To date, determinants of respiratory health in First Nations people living on reserves and means of addressing and redressing those determinants have not been well established. Hence the Saskatchewan First Nations Lung Health Project (FNLHP) is a new prospective cohort study of aboriginal people being conducted in two First Nations reserves to evaluate potential health determinants associated with respiratory outcomes. Using the population health framework (PHF) of Health Canada, instruments designed with the communities, joint ownership of data, and based on the 4-phase concept of the First Nations Regional Longitudinal Health Survey, the project aims to evaluate individual factors, contextual factors, and principal covariates on respiratory outcomes. The objective of this report is to clearly describe the methodology of (i) the baseline survey that consists of two components, an interviewer-administered questionnaire and clinical assessment; and (ii) potential intervention programs; and present descriptive results of the baseline data of longitudinal FNLHP. METHODS: The study is being conducted over 5 years (2012-2017) in two phases, baseline and longitudinal. Baseline survey has been completed and consisted of (i) an interviewer-administered questionnaire-based evaluation of individual and contextual factors of importance to respiratory health (with special focus on chronic bronchitis, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, asthma and obstructive sleep apnea), and (ii) clinical lung function and allergy tests with the consent of study participants. The address-redress phase consists of potential intervention programs and is currently being rolled out to address-at community level (via green light program and environmental study), and redress-at policy level (via obesity reduction and improved diagnosis and treatment of obstructive sleep apnea) the issues that have been identified by the baseline data. RESULTS: Interviewer-administered surveys were conducted in 2012-2013 and collected data on 874 individuals living in 406 households from two reserve communities located in Saskatchewan, Canada. Four hundred and forty six (51%) females and 428 (49%) males participated in the FNLHP. CONCLUSIONS: The information from this project will assist in addressing and redressing many of the issues involved including the provision of adequate housing, health lifestyle practices, and in planning for health service delivery.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.135
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.064
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.992
Threshold uncertainty score0.713

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.1350.064
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0050.003
Science and technology studies0.0100.007
Scholarly communication0.0040.003
Open science0.0040.012
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.898
GPT teacher head0.654
Teacher spread0.244 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations39
Published2015
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBMC Research NotesSame topicIndigenous Studies and EcologyFrench-language works237,207