A scoping review of Indigenous Peoples’ conceptualization of HIV pre-exposure prophylaxis in Australia, Canada, New Zealand and the United States and its applications to Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Despite increasing PrEP use in Canada, uptake remains low among Indigenous Peoples, who experience disproportionately higher rates of HIV. A scoping review following Arksey and O’Malley’s framework and PRISMA-ScR was conducted using literature from 2012 to 2024 to explore how Indigenous Peoples conceptualize PrEP regarding awareness, motivation, access, and effectiveness. We included qualitative, quantitative, and mixed-method studies and reports from Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and the United States. Out of 181 identified articles, 11 met our inclusion criteria. The studies highlighted a lack of Indigenous People identifying with mainstream gay communities where PrEP promotion usually occurs. Individuals were motivated to use PrEP to prevent getting HIV and if PrEP was funded. Healthcare provider barriers such as overburdened Indigenous-specific services and a focus on chronic diseases, along with HIV-related stigma and homophobia, limit access to PrEP. This review also revealed a lack of effective use of PrEP by Indigenous populations.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".