Global scoping review outlines Indigenous-led health program implementation and identifies gaps, suggesting needed advancements.
<ns3:p> Background Indigenous communities worldwide continue to lead and partner in health initiatives, yet no global synthesis has mapped how implementation science is being applied with Indigenous peoples, communities, and organizations across health and health-related settings. Existing literature is fragmented across disciplines, regions, and publication types, and uses diverse terminology. This limits understanding of where Indigenous-led and partnered implementation science is occurring, how it is conceptualized and operationalized, and how Indigenous leadership, governance, and data sovereignty are reported. Methods This protocol outlines a global scoping review guided by Joanna Briggs Institute methodology and reported according to PRISMA-ScR. We will include peer-reviewed and grey empirical literature from any country and any year involving Indigenous peoples or communities and an explicit implementation focus, such as implementation determinants, strategies, processes, outcomes, use of implementation science theories, models, or frameworks, or implementation-focused designs. Searches will be conducted in bibliographic databases and structured grey literature sources. Two reviewers will independently screen records and extract data. Charted items will include study characteristics, region, setting, population, health area, program type, implementation approaches, theories/models/frameworks, Indigenous leadership and partnership, governance and advisory structures, data-sovereignty practices, authorship or reflexivity, and key implementation findings. Quantitative data will be summarized descriptively and qualitative information will be synthesized using iterative thematic and content-analytic approaches. Indigenous partners will help interpret emerging findings and shape dissemination products for communities and policy audiences. Discussion This review will provide the first global map of Indigenous-led and partnered implementation science in health and health-related contexts. It will support future Indigenous-led research, capacity building, funding priorities, and policy by identifying geographical, topical, methodological, and reporting gaps, and by documenting promising practices in co-design, governance, and ethical implementation. The review is also intended to strengthen awareness and application of implementation science approaches aligned with Indigenous priorities, self-determination, cultural safety, and equity. <ns3:bold>Registration:</ns3:bold> Open Science Framework, https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/SX2T6 </ns3:p>
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Dunn et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: