American Indian Patients in Psychotherapy: A Scoping Review and Comparison of Peer Reviewed Published Case Studies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This will be the first scoping review and systematic case comparison of peer reviewed, published, psychotherapy case studies with American Indian (AI) patients. The primary aims of the study are to identify, catalog, and compare AI psychotherapy case studies to understand the state of the science and to generate scientific knowledge, which is sorely lacking, about psychotherapy process with American Indians. In so doing, we intended to fill a considerable gap in the psychotherapy research literature. We will follow procedures provided by the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) and will employ the PRISMA Extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR): Checklist and Explanation to conduct the scoping review in the process. Four databases will be searched: APA PsycInfo, Embase, Ovid MEDLINE(R) ALL, and PubMed Central. An experienced medical librarian (MCF) will be consulted on methodology. Scoping searches will be done in each database. An iterative process will be used to translate and refine the searches. To maximize sensitivity, the formal search will use controlled vocabulary terms and synonymous free-text words to capture case studies around the concepts of “Native Americans” and “psychotherapy”. A draft MEDLINE search strategy is included below. Reviewers will check for additional relevant cited and citing articles using included studies. To capture recently published articles, a second database search will be rerun before publishing the paper. No date or language limits will be imposed on the search. Peer reviewed, published articles containing psychotherapy case material on American Indian patients will be included. Two researchers will work independently to screen potential articles for inclusion. The case material will then be coded with the Basic Information in Single Cases (IBISC; Desmet et al., 2013), which provides a framework for cataloging study characteristics. MEDLINE All (Ovid) 1 alaska natives/ or indians, north american/ or inuits/ or (Alaska Native* or Alaskan Native* or Aleut* or Alutiiq* or American Indian* or Apache or Apaches or Athabaskan* or Blackfeet or Cherokee or Chippewa or Choctaw or Creek or Eyak or first nations or first nation or Haida or Inupiaq* or Inupiat* or Iroquois or kalaallit* or Lakota or Metis or Native American* or native Hawaiian* or Navajo or Pueblo or Sioux or Tlingit or Tlinkit or Tsimshian or yup ik or Yupik).tw,kf. 2 case reports.pt. or case.ti. or (case stud* or case control stud* or case report* or case formulation or case conceptualization or case histor* or case series).tw,kf. 3 exp psychotherapy/ or exp counseling/ or therapy.fs. or (Humanistic or person-centered or Healing or Cognitive behavioral or Counsel* or behavior* treatment* or guided imagery or hypnosis or hypnotherap* or psychoanalysis or psychotherap* or therap).tw,kf. 4 1 and 2 and 3 5 apache II.tw,kf. 6 4 not 5 7 limit 6 to english language
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 | 0.094 | 0.198 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.008 | 0.007 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.062 | 0.042 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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".