Access to Indigenous and allopathic medicines: A systematic review of barriers and facilitators
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Globally, Indigenous peoples are the victims of social inequalities in health. Their state of health is much lower than the health of the general population. Colonialism, living conditions and access to care are the main determinants of observed health conditions. The scientific objective of this systematic literature review is to study the facilitators and barriers to access healthcare for both, traditional and allopathic medicines. Methods: An inclusive search of electronic databases (e.g ProQuest, Ovid, Medline, CINAHL PLUS, Cochrane Library, ApaPsyNet, PsyINFO and Sociological Abstracts databases) of the past 20 years was performed. We retained studies discussing (1) traditional medicine (TM) or allopathic medicine (AM) or both and occurring (2) within Indigenous population worldwide. We made no distinction between research carried out in rural as opposed to urban areas. Results: A total of 45 studies published between 1996 and 2016 met our inclusion criteria and this speaks to the high interest and contemporary pertinence of accessing both systems of healthcare for Indigenous populations worldwide. Our thematic analysis enabled us to group barriers and facilitators into five categories, namely related to personal, relational, cultural, structural and policy components. As far as barriers and facilitators are concerned, the category that encompasses the most themes is the structural category. Conclusions: Mutual respect, trust and understanding of each other’s modalities is essential to offer the best healthcare options from both AM and TM to Indigenous peoples and hence pave the way to reducing health inequities. Wellness and strength-based approaches must also be favoured.
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 | 0.009 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".