Access to and Health Outcomes of Pediatric Solid Organ Transplantation for Indigenous Children in 4 Settler-colonial Countries: A Scoping Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Solid organ transplantation (SOT) is considered the optimal treatment for children with end-stage organ failure; however, increased efforts are needed to understand the gap surrounding equitable access to and health outcomes of SOT for Indigenous children. This scoping review summarizes the literature on the characteristics of access to and health outcomes of pediatric SOT among Indigenous children in the settler-colonial states of Canada, Aotearoa New Zealand, Australia, and the United States. A search was performed on MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, and CINAHL for studies matching preestablished eligibility criteria from inception to November 2021. A preliminary gray literature search was also conducted. Twenty-four studies published between 1996 and 2021 were included. Studies addressed Indigenous pediatric populations within the United States (n = 7), Canada (n = 6), Aotearoa New Zealand (n = 5), Australia (n = 5), and Aotearoa New Zealand and Australia combined (n = 1). Findings showed that Indigenous children experienced longer time on dialysis, lower rates of preemptive and living donor kidney transplantation, and disparities in patient and graft outcomes after kidney transplantation. There were mixed findings about access to liver transplantation for Indigenous children and comparable findings for graft and patient outcomes after liver transplantation. Social determinants of health, such as geographic remoteness, lack of living donors, and traditional spiritual beliefs, may affect SOT access and outcomes for Indigenous children. Evidence gaps emphasize the need for action-based initiatives within SOT that prioritize research with and for Indigenous pediatric populations. Future research should include community-engaged methodologies, situated within local community contexts, to inform culturally safe care for Indigenous children.
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 | 0.005 | 0.024 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.013 | 0.017 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".