Acute health care among Indigenous patients in Canada: a scoping review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A recent report by the Chief Public Health Officer of Canada demonstrates the inferior health status of Indigenous Peoples in Canada when compared to non-Indigenous populations. This scoping review maps out the available literature concerning acute health care for Indigenous Peoples in Canada in order to better understand the health care issues they face. All existing articles concerning health care provided to Indigenous Peoples in Canada in acute settings were included in this review. The targeted studied outcomes were access to care, health care satisfaction, hospital visit rates, mortality, quality of care, length of stay and cost per hospitalisation. 114 articles were identified. The most studied outcomes were hospitalisation rates (58.8%), length of stay (28.0%), mortality (25.4%) and quality of care (24.6%) Frequently studied topics included pulmonary disease, injuries, cardiovascular disease and mental illness. Indigenous Peoples presented lower levels of satisfaction and access to care although they tend to be over-represented in hospitalisation rates for acute care. Greater inclusion of Indigenous Peoples in the health care system and in the training of health care providers is necessary to ensure a better quality of care that is culturally safe for Indigenous Peoples.
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 | 0.005 | 0.019 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.011 | 0.020 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".