Exploration of Existing Integrated Mental Health and Addictions Care Services for Indigenous Peoples in Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Due to the persistent impacts of colonialism, Indigenous peoples of Canada face disproportionate rates of mental health and substance use disorders, which are often insufficiently addressed by Eurocentric 'mainstream' mental health and addiction services. The need to better address Indigenous mental health has led to Indigenous mental health integrated care (hereafter integrated care): programs using both Indigenous and Western practices in their care delivery. This research describes the common lessons, disjunctures, and solutions experienced by existing integrated care programs for Indigenous adults across Canada. It reveals the best practices of integrated care for programs, and contributes to the Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada's Calls to Action #20 and #22. This study, co-designed by an Indigenous Knowledge Keeper and Practitioner, explores the programs' relational processes through interviews with key informants. The data was analyzed in consultation with Indigenous collaborators to highlight Indigenous values and interpretations, and knowledge co-production. In highlighting the complexity of integrated care, study results show the lessons of 'Real Commitment to Communities and Community Involvement,' and tensions and disjunctures of 'Culture as Healing,' 'People-focused vs. Practitioner-focused Programs,' 'Community-oriented vs. Individual-oriented Programs,' and 'Colonial Power Dynamics in Integrated Care.' The discussion explores why tensions and disjunctures exist, and suggests how to move forward using integrated care's lessons and the concept of IND-equity. Ultimately, Indigenous-led partnerships are paramount to integrated care because they leverage Indigenous knowledge and approaches to achieve health equity within integrated care.
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 | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.019 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".