Blending Indigenous Sharing Circle and Western Focus Group Methodologies for the Study of Indigenous Children’s Health: A Systematic Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The primary objective of this systematic review was to investigate how Western focus groups and Indigenous sharing circles have been blended for the study of Indigenous children’s health. The secondary objective of this study was to propose recommendations for adapting focus groups to include elements of sharing circles. This systematic review was conducted using a systematic search of original research articles published between 2009 and 2020 that (a) focused on North American Indigenous children’s health and (b) used group-based qualitative methods including focus groups and sharing circles. Each of the articles was screened for relevance and quality. The methods sections were reviewed, subjected to qualitative content analysis, and codes were analyzed to identify common themes and synthesize results. We identified 29 articles, most of which followed a community-based participatory research approach. In these publications, most included a community advisory board, ethics approval was obtained, and in some cases, community members were included as research assistants. There was evidence that sharing circles and focus group methods had been blended in the recent Indigenous children’s health literature. This was particularly apparent in the authors’ approaches to recruitment, location, facilitation techniques, question format and reimbursement. Several groups have published results that describe approaches that successfully incorporated aspects of Indigenous sharing circles into Western focus groups, thus establishing a research method that is culturally safe and appropriate for the study of Indigenous children’s 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 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 | 0.069 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 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".