Scoping review of telehealth use by Indigenous populations from Australia, Canada, New Zealand, and the United States
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Telehealth has the potential to address health disparities experienced by Indigenous people, especially in remote areas. This scoping review aims to map and characterize the existing evidence on telehealth use by Indigenous people and explore the key concepts for effective use, cultural safety, and building therapeutic relationships. METHODS: A search for published and gray literature, written in English, and published between 2000 and 2022 was completed in 17 electronic databases. Two reviewers independently screened retrieved records for eligibility. For included articles, data were extracted, categorized, and analyzed. Synthesis of findings was performed narratively. RESULTS: A total of 321 studies were included. The most popular type of telehealth used was mHealth (44%), and the most common health focuses of the telehealth interventions were mental health (26%) and diabetes/diabetic retinopathy (13%). Frequently described barriers to effective telehealth use included concerns about privacy/confidentiality and limited internet availability; meanwhile, telehealth-usage facilitators included cultural relevance and community engagement. Although working in collaboration with Indigenous communities was the most frequently reported way to achieve cultural safety, 40% of the studies did not report Indigenous involvement. Finally, difficulty to establish trusting therapeutic relationships was a major concern raised about telehealth, and evidence suggests that having the first visit-in-person is a potential way to address this issue. CONCLUSION: This comprehensive review identified critical factors to guide the development of culturally-informed telehealth services to meet the needs of Indigenous people and to achieve equitable access and positive health outcomes.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 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".