MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3028976297 · doi:10.1186/s13643-020-01374-x

Use and uptake of web-based therapeutic interventions amongst Indigenous populations in Australia, New Zealand, the United States of America and Canada: a scoping review

2020· review· en· W3028976297 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueSystematic Reviews · 2020
Typereview
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicDigital Mental Health Interventions
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Health and Medical Research CouncilMedical Research CouncilUniversity of Adelaide
KeywordsIndigenousInclusion (mineral)Psychological interventionMedicineHealth careMEDLINEFamily medicineMedical educationNursingSocial scienceEconomic growthPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Barriers to receiving optimal healthcare exist for Indigenous populations globally for a range of reasons. To overcome such barriers and enable greater access to basic and specialist care, developments in information and communication technologies are being applied. The focus of this scoping review is on web-based therapeutic interventions (WBTI) that aim to provide guidance, support and treatment for health problems. OBJECTIVES: This review identifies and describes international scientific evidence on WBTI used by Indigenous peoples in Australia, New Zealand, Canada and USA for managing and treating a broad range of health conditions. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: Studies assessing WBTI designed for Indigenous peoples in Australia, Canada, USA and New Zealand, that were published in English, in peer-reviewed literature, from 2006 to 2018 (inclusive), were considered for inclusion in the review. Studies were considered if more than 50% of participants were Indigenous, or if results were reported separately for Indigenous participants. SOURCES OF EVIDENCE: Following a four-step search strategy in consultation with a research librarian, 12 databases were searched with a view to finding both published and unpublished studies. CHARTING METHODS: Data was extracted, synthesised and reported under four main conceptual categories: (1) types of WBTI used, (2) community uptake of WBTI, (3) factors that impact on uptake and (4) conclusions and recommendations for practice. RESULTS: A total of 31 studies met the inclusion criteria. The WBTI used were interactive websites, screening and assessment tools, management and monitoring tools, gamified avatar-based psychological therapy and decision support tools. Other sources reported the use of mobile apps, multimedia messaging or a mixture of intervention tools. Most sources reported moderate uptake and improved health outcomes for Indigenous people. Suggestions to improve uptake included as follows: tailoring content and presentation formats to be culturally relevant and appropriate, customisable and easy to use. CONCLUSIONS: Culturally appropriate, evidence-based WBTI have the potential to improve health, overcome treatment barriers and reduce inequalities for Indigenous communities. Access to WBTI, alongside appropriate training, allows health care workers to better support their Indigenous clients. Developing WBTI in partnership with Indigenous communities ensures that these interventions are accepted and promoted by the communities.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.160
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0050.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.323
GPT teacher head0.474
Teacher spread0.150 · 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