Health and well-being needs of Indigenous adolescents: a protocol for a scoping review of qualitative studies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Improving the health of Indigenous adolescents is central to addressing the health inequities faced by Indigenous peoples. To achieve this, it is critical to understand what is needed from the perspectives of Indigenous adolescents themselves. There have been many qualitative studies that capture the perspectives of Indigenous young people, but synthesis of these has been limited to date. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This scoping review seeks to understand the specific health needs and priorities of Indigenous adolescents aged 10-24 years captured via qualitative studies conducted across Australia, Aotearoa New Zealand, Canada, the USA, Greenland and Sami populations (Norway and Sweden). A team of Indigenous and non-Indigenous researchers from these nations will systematically search PubMed (including the MEDLINE, PubMed Central and Bookshelf databases), CINAHL, Embase, Scopus, the Informit Indigenous and Health Collections, Google Scholar, Arctic Health, the Circumpolar Health Bibliographic Database, Native Health Database, iPortal and NZresearch.org, as well as specific websites and clearinghouses within each nation for qualitative studies. We will limit our search to articles published in any language during the preceding 5 years given that needs may have changed significantly over time. Two independent reviewers will identify relevant articles using a two-step process, with disagreements resolved by a third reviewer and the wider research group. Data will then be extracted from included articles using a standardised form, with descriptive synthesis focussing on key needs and priorities. This scoping review will be conducted and reported according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews guidelines. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethics approval was not required for this review. Findings will be disseminated via a peer-reviewed journal article and will inform a broader international collaboration for Indigenous adolescent health to develop evidence-based actions and solutions.
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 | 0.238 | 0.184 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.007 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.011 | 0.013 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.023 | 0.019 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.009 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.013 |
| Open science | 0.009 | 0.012 |
| Research integrity | 0.012 | 0.012 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.059 | 0.014 |
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".