What healthcare programs have been developed for the management of musculoskeletal pain in Indigenous populations? A scoping review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT Objective There is a current knowledge gap and need for a comprehensive summary of literature about the management of musculoskeletal pain for Indigenous people internationally. We aimed to summarise and appraise cultural and methodological quality of studies describing programs developed to support Indigenous peoples manage musculoskeletal pain. Design Scoping review. Data sources Systematic literature search of Medline, Embase, CINAHL, Proquest Central and Scopus from January 1993 to November 2023. Eligibility criteria Scientific literature published in English; conducted in Canada, United States of America, Australia and New Zealand; describing the development and/or implementation of programs or components of programs for Indigenous patients with musculoskeletal pain or health staff working with Indigenous patients with pain musculoskeletal pain were included. Results 23 articles met the inclusion criteria. Articles were classified into two categories: programs for patients (n=16) and programs for health staff working with Indigenous peoples (n=7). Overall methodological quality of studies was moderate-high, overall cultural quality of studies was moderate. Most programs had positive outcomes and were well received by participants. Multiple strategies, including culturally appropriate models of care and locations, were incorporated into the programs and most studies considered cultural components for the development and delivery of the programs. Conclusion Although there has been a recent increase in research for the management of musculoskeletal pain amongst Indigenous peoples it is still limited. Cultural considerations are critical for research methodology and the development and delivery of new health programs focussed on improving the health and wellbeing of Indigenous peoples with musculoskeletal pain. What is already known in this topic Indigenous peoples internationally experience an inequitable burden due to musculoskeletal pain and have reduced access to culturally safe and appropriate health programs for musculoskeletal pain. Culturally safe and appropriate healthcare programs have demonstrated positive outcomes for Indigenous peoples with other chronic disease conditions. Little is known about the western methodological or cultural rigour of research, features, or outcomes of musculoskeletal programs for Indigenous peoples. What are the new findings Programs have been developed to improve the management of musculoskeletal pain for Indigenous peoples, by providing interventions for Indigenous peoples and education training for health staff working with Indigenous peoples with musculoskeletal pain conditions. A comprehensive summary of the programs can inform Indigenous Community members, clinicians and researchers in the future development of culturally safe, appropriate and accessible programs for Indigenous peoples. Strategies for the development and delivery of health programs, such as the co-design of programs with Indigenous peoples and the implementation of programs in culturally safe locations, have resulted in positive outcomes for Indigenous peoples with musculoskeletal pain conditions. Musculoskeletal health research with Indigenous peoples needs to be of a high quality from both methodological and cultural perspective. Examples of how to conduct or appraise future studies are demonstrated.
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 | 0.021 | 0.076 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.014 | 0.017 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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 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".