MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W6907848936 · doi:10.25384/sage.c.5933309

Systematic review of Indigenous involvement and content in mental health interventions and their effectiveness for Indigenous populations

2022· other· en· W6907848936 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueSage Journals Data · 2022
Typeother
Languageen
Field
Topic
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIndigenousPsychological interventionMental healthPublic healthAnxietyDistressIntervention (counseling)Data extraction

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Objective:To assess the effects of psychological, psychosocial, educational and alternative interventions on mental health outcomes of Indigenous adult populations in Australia, Canada, New Zealand and the United States and the Indigenous involvement and content in each study.Methods:We systematically searched databases, key journals and gray literature, for records until June 2020. Eligible studies were in English or French and examined the impact of interventions on mental health outcomes including anxiety disorders, posttraumatic stress disorder, depression, psychological distress or stress for Indigenous adults (⩾16 years). Data were extracted using a modified Cochrane Data Extraction Form and the Template for Intervention Description and Replication. Quality was evaluated using the Effective Public Health Practice Project quality assessment form.Results:In total, 21 studies were eligible, comprising 8 randomized controlled trials, 10 single-group pre–post studies and 3 pre–post studies with comparison groups. Twenty studies had Indigenous individuals or organizations involved in some decision-making capacity, though extent of involvement varied widely. In total, 9 studies were rated moderate and 12 weak in the Effective Public Health Practice Project quality assessment. Eight studies measuring depression, three measuring posttraumatic stress disorder, three measuring psychological distress and two measuring stress showed statistically significant improvements following the intervention.Conclusion:A wide range of interventions demonstrated mental health improvements. However, it is difficult to draw generalizable conclusions on intervention effectiveness, given heterogeneity among studies. Studies should employ a thorough assessment of the Indigenous involvement and content of their interventions for reporting and for critical consideration of the implications of their research and whether they address Indigenous determinants of mental health.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.025
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.092
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.025
Threshold uncertainty score0.131

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0250.092
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0110.009
Bibliometrics0.0120.011
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.003
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.000

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 head0.170
GPT teacher head0.401
Teacher spread0.231 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSystematic review
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
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSage Journals DataFrench-language works237,207