MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2393380843 · doi:10.18192/uojm.v6i1.1565

Towards a framework for the development, implementation and sustainability of eHealth interventions in Indigenous communities

2016· article· en· W2393380843 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.

Bibliographic record

VenueUniversity of Ottawa Journal of Medicine · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicICT in Developing Communities
Canadian institutionsMcMaster UniversityNOSM University
Fundersnot available
KeywordseHealthIndigenousPsychological interventionSustainabilityTelehealthmHealthFlexibility (engineering)Public relationsPolitical scienceTelemedicineSociologyKnowledge managementHealth careBusinessMedicineNursingComputer scienceManagement

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

eHealth technology, an umbrella term including telemedicine, telehealth, and mobile health interventions (among others), has re­cently begun expanding its reach into Indigenous communities. With this new “migration” comes the need for special consideration of the factors that contribute to “successful” adoption, integration, and sustainability of such eHealth technologies in Indigenous communities. While existing frameworks are typically helpful orientations to guide eHealth implementation, they commonly lack ele­ments that give specific consideration to the important nuances and special considerations when piloting eHealth initiatives in these unique and diverse community and cultural contexts. There is thus a need to expand, adapt, or design new eHealth adoption and implementation frameworks that help guide the piloting and use of health technologies in respectful, ethical, and community-centered ways in Indigenous communities. This paper suggests subjective considerations for the preliminary development of a generic eHealth technology adoption and implementation framework in Indigenous communities. Considerations are divided into three main sections: Development and Adoption; Implementation; and Sustainability, with relevant discussion of the centrality of community engagement, inclusivity, and respect. La cybersanté est une expression utilisée en médecine pour regrouper différentes technologies telles que la télémédecine, la télés­anté, et les interventions de santé mobile. Avec une mise en oeuvre graduelle de la cybersanté dans les communautés autochtones, il y a des considérations spéciales et des facteurs spécifiques à prendre en compte pour assurer une intégration efficace et durable de ces technologies. Certaines infrastructures existent déjà pour faciliter l’utilisation de la cybersanté. Toutefois, il est important que l’utilisation de ces technologies soit éthique, respectueuse des différences culturelles autochtones, et en fonction des besoins des communautés autochtones. Cet article suggère des éléments à considérer dans le développement préliminaire d’une approche médi­cale axée sur la cybersanté et dans la mise en oeuvre d’infrastructure dans les communautés autochtones. Les considérations sont divisées en trois sections : le développement et l’adoption; la mise en oeuvre; et la durabilité, avec une discussion sur l’engagement communautaire, l’inclusion, et le respect mutuel.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.737
Threshold uncertainty score0.145

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.043
GPT teacher head0.335
Teacher spread0.291 · 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