Healing and wellbeing outcomes of services for Aboriginal people based on cultural therapeutic ways: A systematic scoping review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Aboriginal Australians experience disproportionately high rates of mental health problems as the result of European colonisation, and Western evidence-based treatment has been strikingly ineffective in improving the situation. Cultural Therapeutic Ways is a culturally specific healing and wellbeing practice framework developed by the Victorian Aboriginal Child and Community Agency that focuses on culturally based practices, trauma awareness, and self-determination. Despite wide recognition of the importance of these elements in Indigenous healing and wellbeing programs, its measurable empirical impact is currently unclear. This paper summarises findings from a systematic scoping review to ascertain the published knowledge base for Cultural Therapeutic Ways and the gaps in knowledge that can inform future evaluation. Forty-two studies of programs that applied Cultural Therapeutic Ways with Indigenous participants from Australia, Canada, New Zealand, and the United States of America were identified from the literature search. Services based on Cultural Therapeutic Ways contributed to healing and wellbeing because they create safety, strengthen cultural connections, develop empowerment and provide opportunities to release emotion, and increase social and spiritual support. As the review set out to determine the published evidence base for Cultural Therapeutic Ways, other effective approaches may have been overlooked. To develop the evidence base for Cultural Therapeutic Ways, service design must clearly describe target groups, whether the program is delivered by Aboriginal people, the processes of Cultural Therapeutic Ways utilised in service delivery, and how they are blended with Western approaches. Research efforts could also productively be focused on identifying or constructing culturally appropriate outcome measures.
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 | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".