Culturally safe interventions for Indigenous people living with dementia: an empty scoping review and urgent call to action
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Colonization and ongoing colonial policies and practices are contributing to increased dementia rates in Indigenous populations. This health inequity could be addressed by implementing culturally safe dementia interventions specifically designed for Indigenous people. We conducted a scoping review of culturally safe dementia care interventions for Indigenous populations. Databases searched included OVID (Medline, PsycINFO, Embase, Healthstar), Informit Indigenous Collection, JBI EBP, Scopus/Elsevier and PubMed. Eligibility criteria included studies in English, interventions designed specifically for Indigenous persons living with dementia and evaluative outcomes of the intervention. In total, 2,259 articles were identified. After removing duplicates, 1,394 titles and abstracts were screened and 54 studies were screened for eligibility. Of these, no studies were eligible for inclusion. This empty review reveals a massive and inexcusable gap in knowledge around developing, implementing and evaluating culturally safe Indigenous-specific dementia care interventions. Future directions for research include working with Indigenous peoples to determine what culturally safe interventions for dementia look like, implementing high-quality studies with evidence-based measures and outcomes, and improving efforts to get this important work published to inform future studies.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 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".