Selection and Use of Health Services for Infants’ Needs by Indigenous Mothers in Canada: Integrative Literature Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In Canada, Indigenous infants experience significant health disparities when compared to non-Indigenous infants, including significantly higher rates of birth complications and infant mortality rates. The use of primary health care is one way to improve health outcomes; however, Indigenous children may use health services less often than non-Indigenous children. To improve health outcomes within this growing population, it is essential to understand how caregivers, defined here as mothers, select and use health services in Canada. This integrative review is the first to critique and synthesize what is known of how Indigenous mothers in Canada experience selecting and using health services to meet the health needs of their infants. Themes identified suggest both Indigenous women and infants face significant challenges; colonialism has had, and continues to have, a detrimental impact on Indigenous mothering; and very little is known about how Indigenous mothers select and use health services to meet the health of their infants. This review revealed significant gaps in the literature and a need for future research. Suggestions are made for how health providers can better support Indigenous mothers and infants in their use of health services, based on what has been explored in the literature to date.
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 | 0.005 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.013 | 0.022 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".