Diabetic foot complications among Indigenous peoples in Canada: a scoping review through the PROGRESS-PLUS equity lens
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: Indigenous peoples in Canada face a disproportionate burden of diabetes-related foot complications (DRFC), such as foot ulcers, lower extremity amputations (LEA), and peripheral arterial disease. This scoping review aimed to provide a comprehensive understanding of DRFC among First Nations, Métis, and Inuit peoples in Canada, incorporating an equity lens. Methods: framework was utilized to extract data and incorporate an equity lens. A critical appraisal was performed, and Indigenous stakeholders were consulted for feedback. We identified the incorporation of patient-oriented/centered research (POR). Results: Of 5,323 records identified, 40 studies were included in the review. The majority of studies focused on First Nations (92%), while representation of the Inuit population was very limited populations (< 3% of studies). LEA was the most studied outcome (76%). Age, gender, ethnicity, and place of residence were the most commonly included variables. Patient-oriented/centered research was mainly included in recent studies (16%). The overall quality of the studies was average. Data synthesis showed a high burden of DRFC among Indigenous populations compared to non-Indigenous populations. Indigenous identity and rural/remote communities were associated with the worse outcomes, particularly major LEA. Discussion: This study provides a comprehensive understanding of DRFC in Indigenous peoples in Canada of published studies in database. It not only incorporates an equity lens and patient-oriented/centered research but also demonstrates that we need to change our approach. More data is needed to fully understand the burden of DRFC among Indigenous peoples, particularly in the Northern region in Canada where no data are previously available. Western research methods are insufficient to understand the unique situation of Indigenous peoples and it is essential to promote culturally safe and quality healthcare. Conclusion: Efforts have been made to manage DRFC, but continued attention and support are necessary to address this population's needs and ensure equitable prevention, access and care that embraces their ways of knowing, being and acting. Systematic review registration: Open Science Framework https://osf.io/j9pu7, identifier j9pu7.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".