A54 INFLAMMATORY BOWEL DISEASE IN INDIGENOUS POPULATIONS: A SCOPING REVIEW
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background Globally, Inflammatory Bowel Disease (IBD) rates have surged; however, Indigenous/Native/Aboriginal populations (i.e., the original inhabitants of a geographical region) are underrepresented in research and often face unique challenges in accessing healthcare due to socioeconomic barriers stemming from historic inequities. Aims This scoping review aimed to synthesize available literature on IBD in Indigenous populations globally, identify research gaps, and propose recommendations to improve research inclusivity. Methods A literature search was conducted across eight online databases: MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, SCOPUS, Web of Science, i-portal, Native Health Database, and ASTIS. We included qualitative, quantitative, and mixed-method research in this review, as well as commentaries, editorials, and abstracts published between 1960 and 2023. Eligibility criteria included publications in English focused on IBD Indigenous populations. Two reviewers independently screened titles and abstracts. The included publications were summarized and appraised using the Joanna Briggs Institute critical appraisal tools. Results Eighteen publications were included in the review, with most originating from Canada (n=7), New Zealand (n=5), and Australia (n=4). There was one study from Chile and another from the United States. Results showed a lower prevalence of IBD in Indigenous populations compared to the general population, but some recent studies reported an increasing prevalence of IBD among Indigenous populations from different countries. These changes are hypothesized to result from urbanization, changes in diet, sanitation, or other environmental changes. Also, a study from Canada showed that Indigenous peoples face inequities in accessing IBD care. Apart from 3 papers from Canada, 15 of the 18 publications had no evidence of working with Indigenous community members during the research process. Conclusions This scoping review highlights gaps in the literature about IBD in Indigenous populations. While the prevalence of IBD among Indigenous peoples is low, evidence demonstrates that rates are rising. Further research is required to continue studying the rising rates of IBD in Indigenous populations, alongside the genetic and environmental factors contributing to these trends. A focus on patient-centered research should also be emphasized. Indigenous peoples must be included as research partners and Indigenous research protocols must be followed to address health inequities and improve the health and well-being of Indigenous peoples living with IBD. Funding Agencies None
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 | 0.014 | 0.066 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.019 | 0.016 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".