Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40674436›Full record

ArticlePLOS global public health2025

Models of care for Indigenous children in rural and remote settings: A global scoping review.

Joseph Freeman, Thomas Stubbs, Verity Chadwick, Anita Pickard, Tuguy Esgin, Elizabeth J Elliott, Alexandra Martiniuk

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PLOS global public health, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors.

Joseph FreemanFaculty of Medicine and Health, University of Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2759-8236
Thomas StubbsFaculty of Medicine and Health, University of Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5676-4374
Verity ChadwickWomen and Babies Ambulatory Care, Royal Prince Alfred Hospital, Camperdown, New South Wales, Australia.
Anita PickardFaculty of Medicine and Health, University of Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0006-5988-0120
Tuguy EsginFaculty of Business and Law, Curtin University, Bentley, Western Australia, Australia.
Elizabeth J ElliottFaculty of Medicine and Health, University of Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.
Alexandra MartiniukFaculty of Medicine and Health, University of Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Indigenous communities internationally have demonstrated remarkable strength despite significant challenges. Health disparities among Indigenous peoples persist due to historical injustices and ongoing racial discrimination, not inherent vulnerabilities. Disparities are rooted in a legacy of colonisation, systemic exclusion, and socio-economic inequities impacting access to healthcare, education, and employment. Preliminary searches show limited literature on models of care for remote living Indigenous children. This review aimed to identify internationally, effective models of care for Indigenous children in rural and remote areas. A scoping review was conducted, analysing literature on models of care for remote Indigenous children. This study followed the JBI's Scoping Review Guidance and PRISMA Scoping Review guideline. Inclusion criteria were aged ≤18, rural or remote areas, majority Indigenous, reported health outcomes, described a model of care, in English, and published since 1990. Data were systematically extracted, quality appraised using the 'Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Quality Appraisal Tool' then analysed using descriptive-analytical methodology. This review included 16 papers: 8 case series, 3 qualitative studies, and 5 trials. Of these, 7 studies were in Australia, 7 in the USA and 2 in Canada. All studies primary aim was to improve quality of care. Models of care described in the included papers varied, being delivered in traditional healthcare settings, homes, and elsewhere in the community. This review provides insights into the design and implementation of models of care in remote communities with primarily Indigenous populations. The authors recommend 1) that future reviews privilege 'realist evaluation' when examining models of care, 2) designers consider whether a model of care will run for a fixed-period versus ongoing as they have different requirements for success and 3) a toolkit approach to model of care development like the Qungasvik toolkit which provides evidenced modules adaptable to local conditions, easing workload on local people developing programs.

Identifiers

PMID40674436
PMCPMC12270103

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.