An integrative review of empirical literature on indigenous cognitive impairment and dementia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIMS: To synthesize research findings about Indigenous perspectives on cognitive impairment and dementia. DESIGN: Whittemore and Knafl's updated approach to integrative review and PRISMA guidelines for narrative analysis was followed. DATA SOURCES: A systematic search of the published literature from 2010-June 2020 was undertaken in four databases and complemented by supplementary searches. REVIEW METHODS: Thirty-four studies met the research question and inclusion criteria. RESULTS: Four themes describe the findings. Most of the studies were conducted by non-Indigenous researchers and may reflect Western perspectives on dementia rather than Indigenous views. A majority of the studies report epidemiological data or the testing of clinical tools. CONCLUSION: The review indicates a dearth of knowledge about Indigenous perspectives on ageing and understanding of cognitive impairment and dementia. Researchers need to draw on Indigenous traditional knowledge, culture, and traditions through a meaningful engagement with Indigenous communities and Elders to indigenize and decolonize dementia care. IMPACT: This integrative review highlights the need for community-led discussions and community engagement around Indigenous perspectives, needs, and understandings of ageing, cognitive impairment, and dementia care.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".