MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4281635275 · doi:10.2196/34904

Culturally Safe eHealth Interventions With Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander People: Protocol for a Best Practice Framework

2022· article· en· W4281635275 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Georgina Chelberg, Kaley Butten, Ray Mahoney

Bibliographic record

VenueJMIR Research Protocols · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicIndigenous Health, Education, and Rights
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordseHealthBest practiceMedicinePsychological interventionTelehealthMedical educationProtocol (science)Public relationsHealth careParticipatory action researchNursingTelemedicineSociologyPolitical scienceAlternative medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: There is growing global evidence on the adoption and effectiveness of eHealth (including mobile health and telehealth) by First Nation peoples including Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people. Although there are frameworks to guide eHealth development, implementation, and evaluation, it is unknown whether they adequately encapsulate the health, cultural, and community-related priorities of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this research program is to prepare a best practice framework that will guide the co-design, implementation, and evaluation of culturally safe eHealth interventions within existing models of health care for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people. The framework will be a synthesis of evidence that represents best practices in eHealth, as determined by Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people. METHODS: Research activities to develop the best practice framework will occur in stepped but overlapping qualitative research phases with governance from an existing multiagency research collaboration (the Collaboration). The research protocol has been informed by key research frameworks such as the SPIRIT (Standard Protocol Items: Recommendations for Interventional Trials) and Developers of Health Research Reporting Guidelines. The seven phases of research will include the following: systematic literature review, scoping review, theme development, theme consultation, Delphi processes for expert reviews, and dissemination. RESULTS: Members of the Collaboration conceived this research program in August 2020, and a draft was produced in June 2021 with subsequent funding obtained in July 2021. The Collaboration approved the protocol in December 2021. Results for several research phases of the best practice framework development are expected by January 2023, commencing with the systematic literature review and the scoping review. CONCLUSIONS: The research program outlined in this protocol is a timely response to the growing number of eHealth interventions with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people. A best practice framework is needed to guide the rigorous development and evaluation of eHealth innovations to promote genuine co-design and ensure cultural safety and clinical effectiveness for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): DERR1-10.2196/34904.

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)0.212
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.197
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Protocol · Consensus signal: Protocol
Teacher disagreement score0.212
Threshold uncertainty score0.972

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.2120.197
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0060.006
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0070.010
Bibliometrics0.0100.012
Science and technology studies0.0100.008
Scholarly communication0.0100.010
Open science0.0090.013
Research integrity0.0150.020
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0540.016

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 head0.169
GPT teacher head0.616
Teacher spread0.447 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreProtocol

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

Citations16
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJMIR Research ProtocolsSame topicIndigenous Health, Education, and RightsFrench-language works237,207