MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Knowledge translation approaches and practices in Indigenous health research: A systematic review

2022· review· en· W4226509730 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Melody E. Morton Ninomiya, Raglan Maddox, Simon Brascoupé, Nicole Robinson, Donna Atkinson, Michelle Firestone, Carolyn Ziegler, Janet Smylie

Bibliographic record

VenueSocial Science & Medicine · 2022
Typereview
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicIndigenous Health, Education, and Rights
Canadian institutionsPublic Health OntarioSt. Michael's HospitalUniversity of TorontoCARE CanadaWilfrid Laurier UniversityCarleton UniversityUniversity of WaterlooCentre for Addiction and Mental Health
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchWilfrid Laurier University
KeywordsIndigenousKnowledge translationTraditional knowledgePublic healthSociologyMEDLINEMedicinePolitical scienceComputer scienceKnowledge managementNursingBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Knowledge translation (KT) is a critical component of any applied health research. Indigenous Peoples' health research and KT largely continues to be taught, developed, designed, regulated, and conducted in ways that do not prioritize local Indigenous Peoples' ways of sharing knowledges. This review was governed and informed by Indigenous health scholars, Knowledge Guardians, and Elders. Our systematic review focused on answering, what are the promising and wise practices for KT in the Indigenous health research field? Fifty-one documents were included after screening published literature from any country and grey literature from what is now known as Canada. This included contacting 73 government agencies at the federal, territorial, and provincial levels that may have funded Indigenous health research. Only studies that: a) focused on Indigenous Peoples' health and wellness; b) documented knowledge sharing activities and rationale; c) evaluated the knowledge sharing processes or outcomes; and d) printed in English were included and appraised using the Well Living House quality appraisal tool. The analysis was completed using an iterative and narrative synthesis approach. Our systematic review protocol has been published elsewhere. We highlight and summarize the varied aims of Indigenous health research KT, types of KT methodologies and methods used, effectiveness of KT efforts, impacts of KT on Indigenous Peoples' health and wellness, as well as recommendations and lessons learned. Few authors reported using rigorous KT evaluation or disclosed their identity and relationship with the Indigenous communities involved in research (i.e. self-locate). The findings from this review accentuate, reiterate and reinforce that KT is inherent in Indigenous health research processes and content, as a form of knowing and doing. Indigenous health research must include inherent KT processes, if the research is by, for, and/or with 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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.097
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.257
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.903
Threshold uncertainty score0.512

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0970.257
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0090.009
Bibliometrics0.0290.033
Science and technology studies0.0040.004
Scholarly communication0.0080.012
Open science0.0030.007
Research integrity0.0040.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.564
GPT teacher head0.559
Teacher spread0.005 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

Study designSystematic review
DomainMethods
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations56
Published2022
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSocial Science & MedicineSame topicIndigenous Health, Education, and RightsFrench-language works237,207