Holistic antenatal education class interventions: a systematic review of the prioritisation and involvement of Indigenous Peoples’ of Aotearoa New Zealand, Australia, Canada and the United States over a 10-year period 2008 to 2018
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background Research into the effectiveness of antenatal education classes is crucial for Indigenous Peoples from Aotearoa New Zealand, Australia, Canada and the United States who experience poorer maternal and infant health outcomes compared to non-Indigenous populations. Our systematic review questions were intended to determine the extent of Indigenous Peoples prioritisation and involvement in antenatal education classes, and to understand the experience of Indigenous Peoples from these countries in antenatal education classes. Methods Using a standardised protocol, we systematically searched five electronic databases for primary research papers on antenatal education classes within the four countries noted and identified 17 papers that met the criteria. We undertook a qualitative meta-synthesis using a socio-critical lens. Results Systematic review of the academic literature demonstrates that Indigenous Peoples of Aotearoa New Zealand, Australia, Canada and the United States are not prioritised in antenatal education classes with only two of 17 studies identifying Indigenous participants. Within these two studies, Indigenous Peoples were underrepresented. As a result of poor engagement and low participation numbers of Indigenous Peoples in these antenatal education classes, it was not possible to understand the experiences of Indigenous Peoples. Conclusion Given that Indigenous Peoples were absent from the majority of studies examined in this review, it is clear little consideration is afforded to the antenatal health needs and aspirations of Indigenous Peoples of Aotearoa New Zealand, Australia, Canada and the United States. To address the stark antenatal health inequities of Indigenous Peoples, targeted Indigenous interventions that consider culture, language, and wider aspects of holistic health must be privileged. Trial registration PROSPERO Registration ID: CRD4202017658
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 | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".