Indigenous Women’s Perspectives on Heart Health and Well-being: A Scoping Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Indigenous women tend to have higher rates of cardiovascular disease and/or stroke (CVD/s) and are less likely to report their health as good or excellent, in comparison to indigenous men. Cultural values and lived experiences of indigenous women can inform the relationship between them and their healthcare provider and their approaches to self-management of CVD/s. Health research often neglects to consider the subjective and cultural nature of health and well-being. A scoping review was conducted to identify available literature regarding indigenous women's perspectives on heart health. The research question for this scoping review was as follows: How do indigenous women who are at risk of and/or living with cardiovascular disease and stroke perceive their heart health and well-being? Database searches generated 4757 results, with an additional 37 articles identified from grey-literature depositories. A total of 378 articles were assigned a full-text review, of which 10 articles met the criteria for this analysis. The available literature provided evidence on how lifestyle, gender roles, relationships, mental and emotional health, health literature, culture, ceremony and healing, and experiences in the healthcare system impact the perspective that indigenous women have on heart health. Despite this population being at high risk for heart-related illnesses, indigenous women's perspectives on cardiovascular health and well-being continue to be underrepresented in the literature, warranting the need for culturally appropriate health policies informed by their lived experiences.
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 | 0.009 | 0.027 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.010 | 0.010 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".