Diabetes-related foot interventions to improve outcomes for Indigenous peoples in high-income countries: A scoping review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose Indigenous peoples from high income countries experience health disparities attributable to the ongoing legacy of colonisation and racism, including higher rates of diabetes and associated complications, including diabetes foot disease, in comparison to the relevant resident population. Providing culturally safe care through well-organised diabetes foot interventions can improve outcomes. This scoping review describes the range of publications detailing diabetes foot interventions that incorporated Indigenous peoples. Methods This scoping review followed the PRISMA-Scoping Review guide. Indigenous Māori perspectives were included in all stages of the review. Eligible publications described diabetes foot interventions that included Indigenous peoples from high-income countries. Key study characteristics included country, Indigenous population, intervention description, foot-related outcomes, and alignment with the CONSIDER statement domains for reporting on Indigenous involvement in health research. Main findings A total of 32 publications met the eligibility criteria, with publications from Australia (n = 14), Canada (n = 6), USA (n = 6), New Zealand (n = 2), Greenland (n = 2) and Nauru (n = 2). Primary prevention interventions were predominant (n=20) with a focus on increasing foot screening rates (n=16). Other interventions included health promotion and education (n=4), comprehensive foot interventions (n=5), foot care services embedded in undergraduate podiatry education, a diabetic foot ulcer management protocol, and a service brokerage model. Only 2 studies of the 29 evaluated reported all the CONSIDER statement domains. Principal conclusions Few publications described improved outcomes for Indigenous peoples and most interventions for diabetes-related foot disease overlooked Indigenous perspectives and health beliefs concerning feet. The CONSIDER statement provides useful guidance for all stages of research with Indigenous peoples and our findings suggest reporting Indigenous engagement could be strengthened.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".