Understanding the role of Indigenous community participation in Indigenous prenatal and infant-toddler health promotion programs in Canada: A realist review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: Striking disparities in Indigenous maternal-child health outcomes persist in relatively affluent nations such as Canada, despite significant health promotion investments. The aims of this review were two-fold: 1. To identify Indigenous prenatal and infant-toddler health promotion programs in Canada that demonstrate positive impacts on prenatal or child health outcomes. 2. To understand how, why, for which outcomes, and in what contexts Indigenous prenatal and infant-toddler health promotion programs in Canada positively impact Indigenous health and wellbeing. METHODS: We systematically searched computerized databases and identified non-indexed reports using key informants. Included literature evaluated a prenatal or child health promoting program intervention in an Indigenous population in Canada. We used realist methods to investigate how, for whom, and in what circumstances programs worked. We developed and appraised the evidence for a middle range theory of Indigenous community investment-ownership-activation as an explanation for program success. FINDINGS: Seventeen articles and six reports describing twenty programs met final inclusion criteria. Program evidence of local Indigenous community investment, community perception of the program as intrinsic (mechanism of community ownership) and high levels of sustained community participation and leadership (community activation) was linked to positive program change across a diverse range of outcomes including: birth outcomes; access to pre- and postnatal care; prenatal street drug use; breast-feeding; dental health; infant nutrition; child development; and child exposure to Indigenous languages and culture. CONCLUSIONS: These findings demonstrate Indigenous community investment-ownership-activation as an important pathway for success in Indigenous prenatal and infant-toddler health programs.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.017 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".