Global approaches to Indigenous health through interprofessional education: a scoping review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Indigenous communities worldwide experience inequalities in healthcare systems and face profound challenges in accessing equitable care. To bridge these gaps and deliver culturally safe healthcare, healthcare practitioners require appropriate education. Interprofessional education learning activities can facilitate understanding of beneficial and collaborative approaches to Indigenous health. This study explored the depth, breadth, and nature of existing literature on educational strategies used while teaching Indigenous health approaches within interprofessional education. The scoping review was guided by the Joanna Briggs Institute's methodology and considered all forms of English-language evidence with any publication date; it included quantitative, qualitative, mixed-method studies, and gray literature. Six databases were searched along with hand searching and reference list scanning. Sources were screened, extracted using a data extraction form, and analyzed quantitatively and qualitatively. The information was summarized using a summary of results table and a narrative summary. Of 1486 sources, 45 were included following a full-text review. An array of educational strategies informed by various theories and cultural concepts were extracted. Although the content of each learning activity was often unique to the local Indigenous community, many of the foundational theories and concepts were similar across cultures. The findings highlight the importance of partnering meaningfully with Indigenous individuals and communities in educational activity creation and delivery to enhance the quality of learning and learner satisfaction. These findings can contribute to developing culturally safe interprofessional healthcare services for Indigenous communities and guide the development of Indigenous health-related interprofessional education learning activities.
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".