Understanding the utilization of primary health care services by Indigenous men: a systematic review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander men experience worse health outcomes and are the most marginalized and disadvantaged population group in Australia. Primary health care services are critical to providing both clinical and social and emotional support, however, remain underutilized by Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander men. This review aims to better understand the utilization of primary health care services by Indigenous men and assess the effectiveness of strategies implemented to improve utilization. METHODS: A four-step search strategy was employed across four databases to find peer-reviewed publications and grey literature from Australia, New Zealand, Canada and America. The search began in March 2015 and included the following databases PubMed, CINAHL, Informit (Indigenous collection) and Embase. Additional databases and websites were also searched for grey literature, reference lists of included publications were searched for additional studies and relevant experts were consulted. RESULTS: The literature search found seven articles that met the inclusion criteria; four describing three research projects, plus three expert opinion pieces. The search was unable to find published research on strategies implemented to improve primary health care utilization by Indigenous men. There is limited published research focused on the utilization of primary health care by Indigenous men. From the identified papers Indigenous men described factors impacting utilization which were categorized into three primary organizing themes; those related to health services, the attitudes of Indigenous men and knowledge. It is evident from the identified papers that improvements in Indigenous health can only occur if future programs are developed in collaboration with health services and Indigenous men to address differing requirements. CONCLUSIONS: Currently, health systems in Australia are limited in their ability to improve the health and wellbeing of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander males without such strategies. Future research should focus on evaluating the implementation of men specific utilization strategies. It is through evidence-based research that subsequent policies and programs can be made and implemented to improve Indigenous men's health.
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 | 0.014 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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".