The acceptability and utility of Indigenous youth health assessments: a narrative systematic review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Indigenous youth are navigating the transition from childhood to adulthood while contending with challenges of ongoing colonisation and everyday lived experiences of racism. A comprehensive assessment of Indigenous youth's health could enable early diagnosis and respond to health concerns. This narrative systematic review synthesises evidence about the acceptability and utility of primary health care-based health assessments for improving the health and wellbeing of Indigenous youth. METHODS: A systematic search strategy was conducted using 20 electronic databases. Studies were included if they reported on health assessments conducted in primary health care with youth aged 12-24years who were Indigenous to Australia, New Zealand, Canada, the USA, Taiwan, and the arctic regions of Scandinavia and Russia. A narrative synthesis was undertaken. RESULTS: Of 3061 unique studies identified, seven met the eligibility criteria. Included studies showed that youth health assessments were useful for making new diagnoses, detecting social and emotional wellbeing concerns, and biomedical parameters. Co-created health assessments with Indigenous youth conducted by clinicians familiar to the community were well accepted. Digital health assessments administered using an electronic tablet provide advantages. No health outcomes were reported. Additionally, no health assessments addressed the impacts of colonisation and racism. CONCLUSION: There is insufficient evidence to make firm conclusions about the benefits of health assessments; however, health assessments can be useful for detecting new diagnoses and concerns regarding social determinants of health, and social and emotional wellbeing. Future development of Indigenous youth health assessments needs to involve Indigenous youth's perspectives and interpretations of health.
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 | 0.050 | 0.215 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".