Enablers and barriers in providing telediabetes services for Indigenous communities: A systematic review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A systematic review of studies which reported on telediabetes services within Indigenous communities was undertaken in June 2016. The aim of this study was to identify enablers and barriers associated with the delivery of telehealth services for diabetes care amongst Indigenous people. A total of 14 articles met the study inclusion criteria, reporting work in Canada, Australia, India, and the US. Key enablers included the use of cultural and spiritual elements, acknowledgement of local beliefs and traditions, and appropriate community engagement. The involvement of Indigenous health workers was also very important because of their role in communication in local language, helping clinicians understand the community, and the transportation of patients. The main barriers associated with telediabetes services were the potentially high fail-to-attend rates, lack of technical skills associated with the operation of telehealth equipment, and the lack of availability of local staff. Knowledge of the enablers and barriers associated with the delivery of healthcare services to Indigenous communities is important when planning a telediabetes service.
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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".