Exploring Traditional Healing and Medicine in Dementia Care for Indigenous Populations in North America, Australia, and New Zealand: A Policy Advocacy and Practice
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background Access to culturally‐safe dementia assessment, diagnosis, and care in Indigenous populations worldwide is an emerging challenge. In 2018, the World Health Organization recognized traditional healers as stakeholders in dementia care and prevention globally. Traditional healers contribute to dementia assessment, diagnosis, and care in unique ways, and play a catalytic role in the process of culturally‐safe dementia care planning and assessment with health care providers at the community level. The purpose of this scoping review was to understand the roles and experiences of traditional healers, to evaluate strategies for integration between Indigenous traditional healing and western dementia care approaches, and to examine the policy barriers and research gaps in North America, Australia, and New Zealand. Method The scoping review methodology used was the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) approach that included six steps: protocol development based on participants, content and context framework, development of a search strategy, selection of relevant studies, charting of relevant data, synthesis, and reporting of results, and conducting stakeholder consultation. Result Searched English literature in select bibliographic databases, including CINAHL, EMBASE, Medline and PsycINFO. The initial search identified 516 papers published between 2000 and 2020 that met the search criteria. After 164 duplicates were removed, we screened 352 titles and abstracts, excluding the 209 that did not meet the inclusion criteria. The second stage review of 143 full‐text studies resulted in the further exclusion of 141 studies. Only two studies from Canada met all inclusion criteria for this study and explored the potential integration of traditional healing in dementia care and the roles, perceptions, and experiences of traditional healers. Conclusion This study emphasizes the inclusion of traditional healers, knowledge‐holders, and Grandmother groups that can contribute to building an evidence‐based dementia care decision‐making process for Indigenous people with dementia. Integration of Indigenous traditional healing and medicine in dementia care is a path to culturally‐safe dementia care and assessment. diagnosis. The study has policy implications for health care provider education and advocacy needs to engage with traditional healers in dementia care. It recommends two community‐based models to establish culturally‐safe dementia care between traditional healers and healthcare providers in a seamless collaboration.
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 | 0.032 | 0.037 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".