Evidence review of Indigenous culture for health and wellbeing : Supplementary Table
Bibliographic record
Abstract
There is growing evidence that the cultures of Indigenous peoples influences their health and wellbeing. We reviewed articles published between 1997–2017 that studied the \nrelationship between culture, and health and wellbeing outcomes, and used an adapted version of the Agency of Healthcare Research Quality Framework to determine their strength of evidence. We examined the literature grouped by six cultural domains: country and caring for country, knowledge and beliefs, language, self-determination, family and kinship, and cultural expression. Seventy-two publications were included in the review, focusing on populations from Australia, Canada, the United States, and New Zealand. Across the literature there were conceptual variations in defining and measuring culture, and in the comparison of differing social constructs across Indigenous groups. The literature largely report that culture is significantly and positively associated with physical health, social and emotional wellbeing, and \nreduces risk-taking behaviours. The majority of publications presented evidence on the impact that culture, or culturally-based interventions, have on social and emotional wellbeing outcomes. The strength of evidence from most publications was assessed as moderate or low quality, and was limited by a lack of reliable and valid measures, population level studies, and longitudinal \nstudies. Cultural domains including language, cultural expression and connection to country were more likely to be reported in quantitative studies, whereas cultural domains of knowledge, beliefs, kinship and family were more likely to be reported using qualitative methods. Those studies which used mixed-methods approaches were more likely to be assessed as high or moderate quality. This review encourages future research to consider adopting mixed methods approaches to investigate the complex, causal pathways through which culture influences health and wellbeing for Indigenous populations.
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 | 0.009 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 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".