Reproductive health interventions for Inuit youth in the north: a scoping review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Inuit have thrived in the northern regions of Canada and Alaska for thousands of years. Recent evidence suggests that Inuit in this region have experienced systemic barriers to reproductive health with resulting disparities in reproductive health-related outcomes including those among youth. Northern youth-focused reproductive health intervention research or evaluations have not to date been well summarized. The objective of this scoping review was to summarize the literature over the past twenty years focusing on reproductive health interventions for adolescents in northern Inuit communities. METHODS: English-language articles from 2000 to 2020 were identified from seven scientific databases, a general internet search and a review of relevant websites. Two reviewers screened titles, abstracts and full texts and included articles if they mentioned a reproductive health intervention and pertained, directly or indirectly, to reproductive health for Inuit aged 10-19 in northern communities. RESULTS: Seventeen articles met the inclusion criteria, across six themes: (1) Barriers to reproductive health interventions in the north; (2) Northern midwifery; (3) Northern birthing centres; (4) Fetal fibronectin tests for identifying high-risk pregnancies; (5) Prenatal education classes; and (6) Interventions to improve access to and quality of reproductive health supports. CONCLUSION: Overall there is relatively limited evidence base specific to reproductive health interventions and northern Inuit youth. What does exist largely focuses on maternal health interventions and is inclusive of but not specific to youth. There is some evidence that youth specific educational programs, participatory action research approaches and the promotion of northern birthing centres and midwifery can improve reproductive health for adolescents and young mothers in northern Inuit communities. Future initiatives should focus on the creation and evaluation of culturally relevant and youth specific interventions and increasing community and youth participation in intervention research for better reproductive health.
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 | 0.011 | 0.045 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.009 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".