Partnering with Indigenous Elders in primary care improves mental health outcomes of inner-city Indigenous patients: Prospective cohort study.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To determine whether including Indigenous Elders as part of routine primary care improves depressive symptoms and suicidal ideation in Indigenous patients. DESIGN: Prospective cohort study with quantitative measures at baseline and 1, 3, and 6 months postintervention, along with emergency department (ED) utilization rates before and after the intervention. SETTING: Western Canadian inner-city primary care clinic. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 45 people who were older than age 18, who self-identified as Indigenous, and who had no previous visits with the clinic-based Indigenous Elders program. INTERVENTION: Participants met with an Indigenous Elder as part of individual or group cultural sessions over the 6-month study period. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Changes in depressive symptoms, measured with the PHQ-9 (Patient Health Questionnaire), following Indigenous patients' encounters with Indigenous Elders. Secondary outcomes included changes in suicide risk (measured with the SBQ-R [Suicidal Behaviors Questionnaire-Revised]) and ED use. RESULTS: = .005). For all participants there was a 56% reduction in mental health-related ED visits (80 vs 35) when comparing the 12 months before and after enrolment. CONCLUSION: Encounters with Indigenous Elders, as part of routine primary care, were associated with a clinically and statistically significant reduction in depressive symptoms and suicide risk among Indigenous patients. Emergency department use decreased, which might reduce crisis-oriented mental health care costs. Further expansion and evaluation of the role of Indigenous Elders as part of routine primary care is warranted.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".