MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2966928705 · doi:10.1186/s12874-019-0815-8

Consolidated criteria for strengthening reporting of health research involving indigenous peoples: the CONSIDER statement

2019· article· en· W2966928705 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Tania Huria, Suetonia C. Palmer, Suzanne Pitama, Lutz Beckert, Cameron Lacey, Shaun Ewen, Linda Tuhiwai Smith

Bibliographic record

VenueBMC Medical Research Methodology · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicIndigenous Health, Education, and Rights
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersHealth Research Council of New Zealand
KeywordsIndigenousStatement (logic)MEDLINEMedicineFamily medicineEnvironmental healthPolitical sciencePsychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Research reporting guidelines are increasingly commonplace and shown to improve the quality of published health research and health outcomes. Despite severe health inequities among Indigenous Peoples and the potential for research to address the causes, there is an extended legacy of health research exploiting Indigenous Peoples. This paper describes the development of the CONSolIDated critERtia for strengthening the reporting of health research involving Indigenous Peoples (CONSIDER) statement. METHODS: A collaborative prioritization process was conducted based on national and international statements and guidelines about Indigenous health research from the following nations (Peoples): Australia (Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders), Canada (First Nations Peoples, Métis), Hawaii (Native Hawaiian), New Zealand (Māori), Taiwan (Taiwan Indigenous Tribes), United States of America (First Nations Peoples) and Northern Scandinavian countries (Sami). A review of seven research guidelines was completed, and meta-synthesis was used to construct a reporting guideline checklist for transparent and comprehensive reporting of research involving Indigenous Peoples. RESULTS: A list of 88 possible checklist items was generated, reconciled, and categorized. Eight research domains and 17 criteria for the reporting of research involving Indigenous Peoples were identified. The research reporting domains were: (i) governance; (ii) relationships; (iii) prioritization; (iv) methodologies; (v) participation; (vi) capacity; (vii) analysis and findings; and (viii) dissemination. CONCLUSIONS: The CONSIDER statement is a collaborative synthesis and prioritization of national and international research statements and guidelines. The CONSIDER statement provides a checklist for the reporting of health research involving Indigenous peoples to strengthen research praxis and advance Indigenous health outcomes.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.725
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.804
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesMetaresearch
DomainCandidate signal: Reporting · Consensus signal: Reporting
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.275
Threshold uncertainty score0.339

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.7250.804
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0060.008
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0160.031
Bibliometrics0.0380.037
Science and technology studies0.0110.017
Scholarly communication0.0240.011
Open science0.0210.021
Research integrity0.0240.023
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.003

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.

Opus teacher head0.690
GPT teacher head0.641
Teacher spread0.049 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier agree on what is shown here.

Study designTheoretical or conceptual
DomainReporting
GenreMethods

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".

Quick stats

Citations532
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBMC Medical Research MethodologySame topicIndigenous Health, Education, and RightsFrench-language works237,207