“…ensured Indigenous processes remained central throughout the abstraction and analysis. All authors (of whom four were Māori) were involved a et alHunter & Cook, 2020a, 2020bHuria et al, 2014;Kidd et al, 2020Kidd et al, , 2021Van Bewer et al, 2021), one (5%) was quantitative(Cooper Brathwaite et al, 2021), one (5%) was mixed methods(Cooper Brathwaite et al, 2023), and the rest were discursive papers (55%)(Bell, 2021;Hickey et al, 2022;Hunter, 2019; Iheduru-Anderson, 2020; Iheduru-Anderson & Wahl, 2022; Kelly & Chakanyuka, 2021; McFadden et al, 2023; Oda & Rameka, 2012; Talamaivao et al, 2021; Weitzel et al, 2020; Wilson et al, 2022).Three (15%) articles were informed by Kaupapa Māori approaches, two (10%) were literature reviews, seven (35%) were case reports and critical commentary, one (5%) was a case study, and one (5%) was a clinical experience. Nine (42%) articles had at least one author who was Māori, six (30%) articles had at least one Indigenous author, four (20%) articles had a sole author who identified as Black, and in one (5%) article the author identified as non-Indigenous.…”