MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4366449331 · doi:10.1186/s12913-023-09338-2

Ear and hearing care programs for First Nations children: a scoping review

2023· review· en· W4366449331 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Kai Nash, Rona Macniven, Liesa Clague, Harvey Coates, Mark Fitzpatrick, Hasantha Gunasekera, Kylie Gwynne, Luke Halvorsen, Samantha Harkus, Leanne Holt, Noeleen Lumby, Katie Neal, Neil Orr, Elizabeth Pellicano, Boe Rambaldini, Catherine McMahon

Bibliographic record

VenueBMC Health Services Research · 2023
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicEar Surgery and Otitis Media
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersMacquarie UniversityAustralian Government
KeywordsMedicinePsycINFOCINAHLHearing lossHealth careMEDLINEHealth administrationNursingPublic healthAudiologyPsychological interventionEconomic growthPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Ear and hearing care programs are critical to early detection and management of otitis media (or middle ear disease). Otitis media and associated hearing loss disproportionately impacts First Nations children. This affects speech and language development, social and cognitive development and, in turn, education and life outcomes. This scoping review aimed to better understand how ear and hearing care programs for First Nations children in high-income colonial-settler countries aimed to reduce the burden of otitis media and increase equitable access to care. Specifically, the review aimed to chart program strategies, map the focus of each program against 4 parts of a care pathway (prevention, detection, diagnosis/management, rehabilitation), and to identify the factors that indicated the longer-term sustainability and success of programs. METHOD: A database search was conducted in March 2021 using Medline, Embase, Global Health, APA PsycInfo, CINAHL, Web of Science Core Collection, Scopus, and Academic Search Premier. Programs were eligible or inclusion if they had either been developed or run at any time between January 2010 to March 2021. Search terms encompassed terms such as First Nations children, ear and hearing care, and health programs, initiatives, campaigns, and services. RESULTS: Twenty-seven articles met the criteria to be included in the review and described a total of twenty-one ear and hearing care programs. Programs employed strategies to: (i) connect patients to specialist services, (ii) improve cultural safety of services, and (iii) increase access to ear and hearing care services. However, program evaluation measures were limited to outputs or the evaluation of service-level outcome, rather than patient-based outcomes. Factors which contributed to program sustainability included funding and community involvement although these were limited in many cases. CONCLUSION: The result of this study highlighted that programs primarily operate at two points along the care pathway-detection and diagnosis/management, presumably where the greatest need lies. Targeted strategies were used to address these, some which were limited in their approach. The success of many programs are evaluated as outputs, and many programs rely on funding sources which can potentially limit longer-term sustainability. Finally, the involvement of First Nations people and communities typically only occurred during implementation rather than across the development of the program. Future programs should be embedded within a connected system of care and tied to existing policies and funding streams to ensure long term viability. Programs should be governed and evaluated by First Nations communities to further ensure programs are sustainable and are designed to meet community needs.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.008
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.042
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.987
Threshold uncertainty score0.044

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.042
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.004
Bibliometrics0.0160.020
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0040.003
Open science0.0030.002
Research integrity0.0030.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.262
GPT teacher head0.538
Teacher spread0.277 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations9
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBMC Health Services ResearchSame topicEar Surgery and Otitis MediaFrench-language works237,207