A Systematic Review of Communication-Focused Dementia Interventions for Indigenous Communities
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Dementia is a significant challenge for many Indigenous peoples who face inequities in risk factors, prevalence, progression rates, and access to quality healthcare. Culturally relevant interventions are needed across the care pathway, however, little evidence exists to guide culturally relevant communication support. This systematic review aims to understand dementia communication interventions developed for Indigenous populations and explore factors relating to their effectiveness. A systematic search of databases, repositories, and search engines was conducted. We took a comprehensive approach to communication, considering the communication skills and abilities of people with dementia, their communication partners, healthcare providers, and community-level information sharing. Studies were required to evaluate an intervention targeting communicative skills, communicative ability, or health communication and include a cultural focus on one or more Indigenous communities. Quality was appraised using an adapted Well Living House Quality Appraisal Tool. Six studies met inclusion criteria, with most studies ( n = 5) conducted from 2019 onwards. No studies evaluated an intervention targeting communicative skills and abilities for people with dementia, their communication partners, or healthcare providers. All included studies evaluated a health communication intervention. Interventions utilised various resources, including storybooks, videos, flipcharts, posters, handouts, worksheets, fact sheets, and training modules, tailored towards Indigenous communities across Canada, the United States, and Australia. Content about dementia and dementia management varied across interventions. Analysis identified key benefits of the interventions and three factors influencing their effectiveness: (1) representation of Indigenous people, cultures, and languages in resources, (2) methods and settings for knowledge sharing, and (3) communication, connection, and collaboration. While content within resources and methods for information sharing should be tailored to local communities, common elements may support health communication developments across Indigenous contexts. Further research is needed to develop interventions specifically targeting communication skills and conduct methodologically strong evaluations.
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".