Telehealth and indigenous populations around the world: a systematic review on current modalities for physical and mental health
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Approximately 370-500 million Indigenous people live worldwide. While Indigenous peoples make up only 5% of the world's population, they account for 15% of the extreme poor and have life expectancy that is 20 years shorter than that of non-Indigenous people. Access to healthcare has been identified as an important social determinant of health and key driver of health outcomes. Indigenous populations often face barriers to accessing healthcare including living in remote areas, lacking financial resources, and having cultural differences. Telehealth, the utililzation of any synchronous modality, including phone, video, or teleconferencing technology used to support the provision of long-distance health care and health education, is a feasible and cost-effective treatment delivery mechanism that has successfully addressed access barriers faced by vulnerable populations globally, however, few studies have included indigenous populations and the application of this technology to improve physical and mental health outcomes. This systematic review aims to identify trials that were conducted among Indigenous adults, and to summarize the components of interventions that have been found to effectively improve the health of Indigenous peoples. The PRISMA guidelines for reporting of systematic reviews were followed in preparing this manuscript. Studies were identified by searching PubMed, Scopus, and PsychInfo databases for clinical trial articles on Indigenous peoples and mental and physical health, published between January 1, 1998 and December 31, 2018. Eligibility criteria for determining studies to include in the analysis were as follows: (I) ≥18 years of age; (II) indigenous peoples; (III) any technology-based intervention; (IV) studies included at least one of the following mental health (depression, post-traumatic stress disorder, suicide) and physical health (mortality, blood pressure, hemoglobin A1C, cholesterol, quality of life) outcomes; (V) clinical trials. A total of 2,662 articles were identified and six were included in the final review based on pre-specified eligibility criteria. Three were conducted in the United States, one study was conducted in Canada, and two were conducted in New Zealand. Study sample sizes ranged from 20 to 762, intervention delivery times ranged from three to 20 months and utilized telephone, internet and SMS messaging as the type of technology. There is a paucity of evidence on the use of telehealth programs to increase access to chronic disease programs in Indigenous populations. This review highlights the importance of culturally tailoring programs despite the modality in which they are delivered, and recommends telephone-based delivery facilitated by a trained health professional. Telehealth has great promise for meeting the health needs of highly marginalized Indigenous populations around the world, however, at this point more research is needed to understand how best to structure and deliver these programs for maximum effect.
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 | 0.009 | 0.033 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.010 | 0.011 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".