A scoping review of the perinatal healthcare experiences of Indigenous childbearing people
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Globally, perinatal healthcare access, quality, and outcomes significantly vary between Indigenous and non-Indigenous childbearing people. This situation is precipitated by systemic barriers emanating from the longstanding effects of colonialization. Despite ongoing awareness of culturally safe perinatal care, Indigenous childbearing people continue to have challenging experiences. The purpose of this scoping review was to explore the perinatal healthcare experiences of Indigenous childbearing people to identify research gaps and inform future nursing/midwifery interventions to improve the challenges of engaging in perinatal healthcare in this population. METHODS: The scoping review framework of Arksey and O'Malley was used in this study by searching, retrieving, and analyzing research papers from CINAHL, Ovid/Medline, PsycINFO, PubMed, and Web of Science. RESULTS: Thirteen peer-reviewed articles published between 2002 and 2021 were analyzed. The experiences of Indigenous childbearing people who sought care during the perinatal period had their experiences classified into positive, negative, complex, and mediating. This scoping review reiterated the need for culturally safe healthcare, preferably delivered by Indigenous healthcare professionals in healthcare facilities situated in Indigenous communities. CONCLUSION: It is crucial to further explore the perinatal healthcare experiences of Indigenous childbearing people through in-depth qualitative research to develop culturally safe interventions, especially when life-limiting illnesses or life-threatening illnesses (LLIs/LTIs) occur. IMPLICATIONS: Overall, completion of this scoping review revealed the need for a comprehensive healthcare system transformation that addresses the needs of childbearing Indigenous families.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.014 | 0.050 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.018 | 0.024 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".