The availability and delivery of culturally responsive Australian Aboriginal infant resuscitation education programmes: a structured literature review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIM: To critically appraise the literature to determine availability and identify the cultural responsiveness of infant resuscitation education for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander populations. BACKGROUND: Despite overall reductions in infant mortality in the last two decades, Aboriginal people have some of the highest rates of infant mortality of any developed nation. One of the key factors that has attributed to improvements in infant mortality rates is parent and carer education around risk factors and actions of first responders. Identifying gaps in the current basic first-aid initiatives available to Aboriginal communities may contribute to developing resources to contribute to reductions in Aboriginal neonatal mortality rates. METHOD: The review used key terms and Boolean operators across an 11-month time frame searching for research articles utilising the databases of CINAHL, Scopus, Ovid Emcare, Informit, Pubmed and Proquest. After review, 39 articles met the inclusion criteria, 25 articles were discarded due to irrelevant material and 14 articles were included in the structured literature review. The search process was developed using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis guidelines. Articles were assessed for validity and inclusion using the Critical Appraisal Skills Program checklist. RESULTS: Research literature relating to First Nation community-based CPR and first-aid education programmes in Canada, USA, India, UK and Europe, Asia and Africa were identified; however, none pertaining specifically to CPR and first-aid education in Australian Aboriginal communities were found. DISCUSSION: Despite the lack of research evidence relating to infant cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) education for Australian Aboriginal populations, the reviewed studies noted the importance of culturally responsive education designed in collaboration with First Nation peoples, using novel ways of teaching CPR, that align with the language, culture and needs of the communities it is intended for. CONCLUSION: Further research is required to create a framework for the delivery of culturally responsive infant resuscitation education for Australian Aboriginal parents and communities.
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 | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".