MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3137768217 · doi:10.1186/s12978-021-01119-6

Reproductive health interventions for Inuit youth in the north: a scoping review

2021· review· en· W3137768217 on OpenAlex
Hannah Mikhail, Sarah Kelly, Colleen Davison

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueReproductive Health · 2021
Typereview
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicIndigenous Studies and Ecology
Canadian institutionsQueen's University
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchQueen's University
KeywordsReproductive healthPsychological interventionReproductive medicinePublic healthHealth promotionMedicineParticipatory action researchIntervention (counseling)Family medicineEnvironmental healthGerontologyNursingPregnancyPopulationSociologyBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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.

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)0.020
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies, Research integrity
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 score0.432
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0200.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0070.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.002
Science and technology studies0.0060.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.003
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 head0.376
GPT teacher head0.568
Teacher spread0.192 · 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