MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4411673896 · doi:10.1177/14713012251355004

Dementia Risk Reduction Education Programs and Resources for Indigenous Peoples of Canada, Aotearoa New Zealand, United States of America and Australia: A Scoping Review

2025· review· en· W4411673896 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Valda Wallace, Kathryn Meldrum, Yvonne C. Hornby‐Turner, Rachel Quigley, Sarah Russell, Edward Strivens

Bibliographic record

VenueDementia · 2025
Typereview
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicIndigenous Health, Education, and Rights
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Health and Medical Research Council
KeywordsAotearoaIndigenousDementiaCINAHLGrey literatureMedicineHealth careReferralPolitical scienceNursingPsychological interventionMEDLINE

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Educational health promotion programs and resources support people to make informed decisions and change their behaviours. Dementia, a name for a group of degenerative brain diseases, affects over 55 million people across the globe. Currently, dementia risk reduction (DRR) is a global health priority as dementia has no known cure. Consequently, educational programs and resources that focus on DRR respond to the global health priority by targeting potentially modifiable risk factors. A project currently being undertaken by the research team is focussed on supporting DRR in Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples' primary care settings in Queensland, Australia. One strategy adopted by the research team is to identify safe and appropriate DRR programs and resources that could be integrated into primary care settings. Consequently, the aim of this scoping review was to identify and determine the quality of DRR programs or resources that have been developed or used with Indigenous peoples of Canada, Aotearoa New Zealand, the United States of America, and Australia. The Joanna Briggs method for scoping reviews was used to identify programs and resources developed with, for and by Indigenous peoples of the target countries. Appropriate databases including CINAHL and Medline as well as Google searches for grey literature published in English since 2010 were used to identify sources. Eleven sources were identified. One source was a published article, the other ten resources were videos (n = 5), websites (n = 2) and electronic written resources (n = 3). Given the paucity of evidence of DRR programs and resources currently available for Indigenous peoples the following recommendations are made for future development. They need to: (1). Be firmly grounded in Indigenous health promotion principles and theoretical frameworks and co-designed with, by and for Indigenous peoples. (2). Provide information about how dementia risk can be reduced; and (3). Linked with chronic disease interventions.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.904
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.024
GPT teacher head0.349
Teacher spread0.325 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDementiaSame topicIndigenous Health, Education, and RightsFrench-language works237,207