Secondary Prophylaxis Among First Nations People With Acute Rheumatic Fever in Australia: An Integrative Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: The prevalence of acute rheumatic fever (ARF) and rheumatic heart disease (RHD) among Australia's First Nations populations are some of the highest in the world, accounting for 95% of the 2,244 ARF notifications between 2015 and 2019 in Australia. A key issue in treating ARF is long-term secondary prophylaxis, yet only one in five patients received treatment in 2019. This review identifies barriers to secondary prophylaxis of ARF in Australia's First Nations people. METHODS: An integrative review was undertaken utilizing PubMed, CINAHL, ProQuest, and Wiley Online. Joanna Briggs Institute critical appraisal tools were used, followed by thematic analysis. RESULTS: The key themes uncovered included: issues with database and recall systems, patient/family characteristics, service delivery location and site, pain of injection, education (including language barriers), and patient-clinician relationship. CONCLUSIONS: A national RHD register, change in operation model, improved pain management, improved education, and need for consistent personnel is suggested.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".