Investigating Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander male health and wellbeing programs and their key elements: A scoping review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ISSUE ADDRESSED: This scoping review aims to explore the size and scope of the body of literature relating to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander male health and wellbeing programs and describe key program elements. METHODS: This review considered unpublished and published literature from electronic peer-reviewed databases and grey literature sources. Included articles must refer to an Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander male health and wellbeing program. Descriptive data synthesised, and seven key program elements were analysed: (1) Origin of Design, (2) Governance, (3) Leads/Facilitators, (4) Funding, (5) Length and Frequency, (6) Outcomes and Measures, and (7) Monitoring and Evaluation. RESULTS: The review identified 54 programs described in 49 publications that were published between 1998 and 2022. Only 20 publications were peer-reviewed articles. Most programs (n = 44) were instigated, co-designed or adapted by Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people to suit cultural and community needs. Reporting on key program elements varied, with only n = 25 of the included publications reporting governance systems. CONCLUSIONS: This work is the first to synthesise the literature and describe the key elements of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander male health and wellbeing programs. Relatively few publications were found describing programs designed specifically for this population group. SO WHAT?: While the descriptive findings of the programs and their key elements in this review can assist health promotion and primary care practitioners, further investment and research are required to strengthen the evidence base and achieve the best health and wellbeing outcomes for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander males.
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 | 0.029 | 0.087 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.018 | 0.022 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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".