Examining Indigenous emergency care equity projects: a scoping review protocol
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Indigenous peoples across the globe face inequitable access to high-quality care. Emergency departments are the first point of access for many Indigenous peoples and are the interface between the individual and the healthcare system. There is a reliance on emergency services due to a lack of primary healthcare, a history of mistreatment from providers and increased disease complexity. As such, a potential place for health equity reform is within these departments and other acute care settings. It is the purpose of this review to determine what projects have occurred that address emergency care inequities in four countries such as Australia, Canada, New Zealand and the USA and explore their successes and failures. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: Using search strategies developed with a research librarian, publications will be identified from indexed databases including Medline, Embase, Web of Science, Cochrane Central, CINAHL and Scopus. Grey literature will also be searched and scanned for inclusion. To be included in the review, articles must describe interventions developed to address Indigenous health equity occurring within emergency care settings. Articles will include both programme descriptions and programme evaluations and be quality appraised by analysing study design and Indigenous research methodologies. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This review does not require ethics approval. This protocol describes a review that attempts to map Indigenous health equity interventions taking place within emergency care settings. It will contribute to Indigenous health scholarship and equity research. Results will be made available in multiple dissemination methods to ensure accessibility by researchers and community members.
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 | 0.148 | 0.107 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.006 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.018 | 0.012 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.026 | 0.023 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.011 |
| Open science | 0.008 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.011 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.068 | 0.017 |
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".