Reclaiming Our Spirits: Development and Pilot Testing of a Health Promotion Intervention for Indigenous Women Who Have Experienced Intimate Partner Violence
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Indigenous women are subjected to high rates of multiple forms of violence, including intimate partner violence (IPV), in the context of ongoing colonization and neo-colonization. Health promotion interventions for women who experience violence have not been tailored specifically for Indigenous women. Reclaiming Our Spirits (ROS) is a health promotion intervention designed for Indigenous women living in an urban context in Canada. In this paper, we describe the development of the intervention, results of a pilot study, and the revised subsequent intervention. Building on a theory-based health promotion intervention (iHEAL) showing promising results in feasibility studies, ROS was developed using a series of related approaches including (a) guidance from Indigenous women with research expertise specific to IPV and Indigenous women's experiences; (b) articulation of an Indigenous lens, including using Cree (one of the largest Indigenous language groups in North America) concepts to identify key aspects; and (c) interviews with Elders (n = 10) living in the study setting. Offered over 6-8 months, ROS consists of a Circle, led by an Indigenous Elder, and 1:1 visits with a Registered Nurse, focused on six areas for health promotion derived from previous research. Pilot testing with Indigenous women (n = 21) produced signs of improvement in most measures of health from pre- to post-intervention. Women found the pilot intervention acceptable and helpful but also offered valuable suggestions for improvement. A revised intervention, with greater structure within the Circle and nurses with stronger knowledge of Indigenous women's experience and community health, is currently undergoing testing. © 2017 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.008 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".