University Dropout Among Indigenous University Students: A Global Systematic Review

University Dropout Among Indigenous University... | F1000Research "use strict";function _typeof(t){return(_typeof="function"==typeof Symbol&&"symbol"==typeof Symbol.iterator?function(t){return typeof t}:function(t){return t&&"function"==typeof Symbol&&t.constructor===Symbol&&t!==Symbol.prototype?"symbol":typeof t})(t)}!function(){var t=function(){var t,e,o=[],n=window,r=n;for(;r;){try{if(r.frames.__tcfapiLocator){t=r;break}}catch(t){}if(r===n.top)break;r=r.parent}t||(!function t(){var e=n.document,o=!!n.frames.__tcfapiLocator;if(!o)if(e.body){var r=e.createElement("iframe");r.style.cssText="display:none",r.name="__tcfapiLocator",e.body.appendChild(r)}else setTimeout(t,5);return!o}(),n.__tcfapi=function(){for(var t=arguments.length,n=new Array(t),r=0;r 3&&2===parseInt(n[1],10)&&"boolean"==typeof n[3]&&(e=n[3],"function"==typeof n[2]&&n[2]("set",!0)):"ping"===n[0]?"function"==typeof n[2]&&n[2]({gdprApplies:e,cmpLoaded:!1,cmpStatus:"stub"}):o.push(n)},n.addEventListener("message",(function(t){var e="string"==typeof t.data,o={};if(e)try{o=JSON.parse(t.data)}catch(t){}else o=t.data;var n="object"===_typeof(o)&&null!==o?o.__tcfapiCall:null;n&&window.__tcfapi(n.command,n.version,(function(o,r){var a={__tcfapiReturn:{returnValue:o,success:r,callId:n.callId}};t&&t.source&&t.source.postMessage&&t.source.postMessage(e?JSON.stringify(a):a,"*")}),n.parameter)}),!1))};"undefined"!=typeof module?module.exports=t:t()}(); dataLayer = dataLayer || []; // Standard GTM initialization - Google Consent Mode handles consent automatically (function(w,d,s,l,i){w[l]=w[l]||[];w[l].push({'gtm.start': new Date().getTime(),event:'gtm.js'});var f=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0], j=d.createElement(s),dl=l!='dataLayer'?'&l='+l:'';j.async=true;j.src= 'https://www.googletagmanager.com/gtm.js?id='+i+dl+ '>m_auth=hzk0Vc3qFsQYhCrIoHz68A>m_preview=env-1>m_cookies_win=x';f.parentNode.insertBefore(j,f); })(window,document,'script','dataLayer','GTM-MWFK8L5J'); ;window.NREUM||(NREUM={});NREUM.init={distributed_tracing:{enabled:true},privacy:{cookies_enabled:true},ajax:{deny_list:["bam.nr-data.net"]}}; ;NREUM.loader_config={accountID:"438030",trustKey:"438030",agentID:"772317073",licenseKey:"97f8f67f26",applicationID:"772317073"} ;NREUM.info={beacon:"bam.nr-data.net",errorBeacon:"bam.nr-data.net",licenseKey:"97f8f67f26",applicationID:"772317073",sa:1} ;/*! For license information please see nr-loader-spa-1.236.0.min.js.LICENSE.txt */ (()=>{"use strict";var e,t,r={5763:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{P_:()=>l,Mt:()=>g,C5:()=>s,DL:()=>v,OP:()=>T,lF:()=>D,Yu:()=>y,Dg:()=>h,CX:()=>c,GE:()=>b,sU:()=>_});var n=r(8632),i=r(9567);const o={beacon:n.ce.beacon,errorBeacon:n.ce.errorBeacon,licenseKey:void 0,applicationID:void 0,sa:void 0,queueTime:void 0,applicationTime:void 0,ttGuid:void 0,user:void 0,account:void 0,product:void 0,extra:void 0,jsAttributes:{},userAttributes:void 0,atts:void 0,transactionName:void 0,tNamePlain:void 0},a={};function s(e){if(!e)throw new Error("All info objects require an agent identifier!");if(!a[e])throw new Error("Info for ".concat(e," was never set"));return a[e]}function c(e,t){if(!e)throw new Error("All info objects require an agent identifier!");a[e]=(0,i.D)(t,o),(0,n.Qy)(e,a[e],"info")}var u=r(7056);const d=()=>{const e={blockSelector:"[data-nr-block]",maskInputOptions:{password:!0}};return{allow_bfcache:!0,privacy:{cookies_enabled:!0},ajax:{deny_list:void 0,enabled:!0,harvestTimeSeconds:10},distributed_tracing:{enabled:void 0,exclude_newrelic_header:void 0,cors_use_newrelic_header:void 0,cors_use_tracecontext_headers:void 0,allowed_origins:void 0},session:{domain:void 0,expiresMs:u.oD,inactiveMs:u.Hb},ssl:void 0,obfuscate:void 0,jserrors:{enabled:!0,harvestTimeSeconds:10},metrics:{enabled:!0},page_action:{enabled:!0,harvestTimeSeconds:30},page_view_event:{enabled:!0},page_view_timing:{enabled:!0,harvestTimeSeconds:30,long_task:!1},session_trace:{enabled:!0,harvestTimeSeconds:10},harvest:{tooManyRequestsDelay:60},session_replay:{enabled:!1,harvestTimeSeconds:60,sampleRate:.1,errorSampleRate:.1,maskTextSelector:"*",maskAllInputs:!0,get blockClass(){return"nr-block"},get ignoreClass(){return"nr-ignore"},get maskTextClass(){return"nr-mask"},get blockSelector(){return e.blockSelector},set blockSelector(t){e.blockSelector+=",".concat(t)},get maskInputOptions(){return e.maskInputOptions},set maskInputOptions(t){e.maskInputOptions={...t,password:!0}}},spa:{enabled:!0,harvestTimeSeconds:10}}},f={};function l(e){if(!e)throw new Error("All configuration objects require an agent identifier!");if(!f[e])throw new Error("Configuration for ".concat(e," was never set"));return f[e]}function h(e,t){if(!e)throw new Error("All configuration objects require an agent identifier!");f[e]=(0,i.D)(t,d()),(0,n.Qy)(e,f[e],"config")}function g(e,t){if(!e)throw new Error("All configuration objects require an agent identifier!");var r=l(e);if(r){for(var n=t.split("."),i=0;i {r.d(t,{D:()=>i});var n=r(50);function i(e,t){try{if(!e||"object"!=typeof e)return(0,n.Z)("Setting a Configurable requires an object as input");if(!t||"object"!=typeof t)return(0,n.Z)("Setting a Configurable requires a model to set its initial properties");const r=Object.create(Object.getPrototypeOf(t),Object.getOwnPropertyDescriptors(t)),o=0===Object.keys(r).length?e:r;for(let a in o)if(void 0!==e[a])try{"object"==typeof e[a]&&"object"==typeof t[a]?r[a]=i(e[a],t[a]):r[a]=e[a]}catch(e){(0,n.Z)("An error occurred while setting a property of a Configurable",e)}return r}catch(e){(0,n.Z)("An error occured while setting a Configurable",e)}}},6818:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{Re:()=>i,gF:()=>o,q4:()=>n});const n="1.236.0",i="PROD",o="CDN"},385:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{FN:()=>a,IF:()=>u,Nk:()=>f,Tt:()=>s,_A:()=>o,il:()=>n,pL:()=>c,v6:()=>i,w1:()=>d});const n="undefined"!=typeof window&&!!window.document,i="undefined"!=typeof WorkerGlobalScope&&("undefined"!=typeof self&&self instanceof WorkerGlobalScope&&self.navigator instanceof WorkerNavigator||"undefined"!=typeof globalThis&&globalThis instanceof WorkerGlobalScope&&globalThis.navigator instanceof WorkerNavigator),o=n?window:"undefined"!=typeof WorkerGlobalScope&&("undefined"!=typeof self&&self instanceof WorkerGlobalScope&&self||"undefined"!=typeof globalThis&&globalThis instanceof WorkerGlobalScope&&globalThis),a=""+o?.location,s=/iPad|iPhone|iPod/.test(navigator.userAgent),c=s&&"undefined"==typeof SharedWorker,u=(()=>{const e=navigator.userAgent.match(/Firefox[/\s](\d+\.\d+)/);return Array.isArray(e)&&e.length>=2?+e[1]:0})(),d=Boolean(n&&window.document.documentMode),f=!!navigator.sendBeacon},1117:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{w:()=>o});var n=r(50);const i={agentIdentifier:"",ee:void 0};class o{constructor(e){try{if("object"!=typeof e)return(0,n.Z)("shared context requires an object as input");this.sharedContext={},Object.assign(this.sharedContext,i),Object.entries(e).forEach((e=>{let[t,r]=e;Object.keys(i).includes(t)&&(this.sharedContext[t]=r)}))}catch(e){(0,n.Z)("An error occured while setting SharedContext",e)}}}},8e3:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{L:()=>d,R:()=>c});var n=r(2177),i=r(1284),o=r(4322),a=r(3325);const s={};function c(e,t){const r={staged:!1,priority:a.p[t]||0};u(e),s[e].get(t)||s[e].set(t,r)}function u(e){e&&(s[e]||(s[e]=new Map))}function d(){let e=arguments.length>0&&void 0!==arguments[0]?arguments[0]:"",t=arguments.length>1&&void 0!==arguments[1]?arguments[1]:"feature";if(u(e),!e||!s[e].get(t))return a(t);s[e].get(t).staged=!0;const r=[...s[e]];function a(t){const r=e?n.ee.get(e):n.ee,a=o.X.handlers;if(r.backlog&&a){var s=r.backlog[t],c=a[t];if(c){for(var u=0;s&&u {let[t,r]=e;return r.staged}))&&(r.sort(((e,t)=>e[1].priority-t[1].priority)),r.forEach((e=>{let[t]=e;a(t)})))}function f(e,t){var r=e[1];(0,i.D)(t[r],(function(t,r){var n=e[0];if(r[0]===n){var i=r[1],o=e[3],a=e[2];i.apply(o,a)}}))}},2177:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{c:()=>f,ee:()=>u});var n=r(8632),i=r(2210),o=r(1284),a=r(5763),s="nr@context";let c=(0,n.fP)();var u;function d(){}function f(e){return(0,i.X)(e,s,l)}function l(){return new d}function h(){u.aborted=!0,u.backlog={}}c.ee?u=c.ee:(u=function e(t,r){var n={},c={},f={},g=!1;try{g=16===r.length&&(0,a.OP)(r).isolatedBacklog}catch(e){}var p={on:b,addEventListener:b,removeEventListener:y,emit:v,get:x,listeners:w,context:m,buffer:A,abort:h,aborted:!1,isBuffering:E,debugId:r,backlog:g?{}:t&&"object"==typeof t.backlog?t.backlog:{}};return p;function m(e){return e&&e instanceof d?e:e?(0,i.X)(e,s,l):l()}function v(e,r,n,i,o){if(!1!==o&&(o=!0),!u.aborted||i){t&&o&&t.emit(e,r,n);for(var a=m(n),s=w(e),d=s.length,f=0;fn,p:()=>i});var n=r(2177).ee.get("handle");function i(e,t,r,i,o){o?(o.buffer([e],i),o.emit(e,t,r)):(n.buffer([e],i),n.emit(e,t,r))}},4322:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{X:()=>o});var n=r(5546);o.on=a;var i=o.handlers={};function o(e,t,r,o){a(o||n.E,i,e,t,r)}function a(e,t,r,i,o){o||(o="feature"),e||(e=n.E);var a=t[o]=t[o]||{};(a[r]=a[r]||[]).push([e,i])}},3239:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{bP:()=>s,iz:()=>c,m$:()=>a});var n=r(385);let i=!1,o=!1;try{const e={get passive(){return i=!0,!1},get signal(){return o=!0,!1}};n._A.addEventListener("test",null,e),n._A.removeEventListener("test",null,e)}catch(e){}function a(e,t){return i||o?{capture:!!e,passive:i,signal:t}:!!e}function s(e,t){let r=arguments.length>2&&void 0!==arguments[2]&&arguments[2],n=arguments.length>3?arguments[3]:void 0;window.addEventListener(e,t,a(r,n))}function c(e,t){let r=arguments.length>2&&void 0!==arguments[2]&&arguments[2],n=arguments.length>3?arguments[3]:void 0;document.addEventListener(e,t,a(r,n))}},4402:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{Ht:()=>u,M:()=>c,Rl:()=>a,ky:()=>s});var n=r(385);const i="xxxxxxxx-xxxx-4xxx-yxxx-xxxxxxxxxxxx";function o(e,t){return e?15&e[t]:16*Math.random()|0}function a(){const e=n._A?.crypto||n._A?.msCrypto;let t,r=0;return e&&e.getRandomValues&&(t=e.getRandomValues(new Uint8Array(31))),i.split("").map((e=>"x"===e?o(t,++r).toString(16):"y"===e?(3&o()|8).toString(16):e)).join("")}function s(e){const t=n._A?.crypto||n._A?.msCrypto;let r,i=0;t&&t.getRandomValues&&(r=t.getRandomValues(new Uint8Array(31)));const a=[];for(var s=0;s {r.d(t,{Bq:()=>n,Hb:()=>o,oD:()=>i});const n="NRBA",i=144e5,o=18e5},7894:(e,t,r)=>{function n(){return Math.round(performance.now())}r.d(t,{z:()=>n})},7243:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{e:()=>o});var n=r(385),i={};function o(e){if(e in i)return i[e];if(0===(e||"").indexOf("data:"))return{protocol:"data"};let t;var r=n._A?.location,o={};if(n.il)t=document.createElement("a"),t.href=e;else try{t=new URL(e,r.href)}catch(e){return o}o.port=t.port;var a=t.href.split("://");!o.port&&a[1]&&(o.port=a[1].split("/")[0].split("@").pop().split(":")[1]),o.port&&"0"!==o.port||(o.port="https"===a[0]?"443":"80"),o.hostname=t.hostname||r.hostname,o.pathname=t.pathname,o.protocol=a[0],"/"!==o.pathname.charAt(0)&&(o.pathname="/"+o.pathname);var s=!t.protocol||":"===t.protocol||t.protocol===r.protocol,c=t.hostname===r.hostname&&t.port===r.port;return o.sameOrigin=s&&(!t.hostname||c),"/"===o.pathname&&(i[e]=o),o}},50:(e,t,r)=>{function n(e,t){"function"==typeof console.warn&&(console.warn("New Relic: ".concat(e)),t&&console.warn(t))}r.d(t,{Z:()=>n})},2587:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{N:()=>c,T:()=>u});var n=r(2177),i=r(5546),o=r(8e3),a=r(3325);const s={stn:[a.D.sessionTrace],err:[a.D.jserrors,a.D.metrics],ins:[a.D.pageAction],spa:[a.D.spa],sr:[a.D.sessionReplay,a.D.sessionTrace]};function c(e,t){const r=n.ee.get(t);e&&"object"==typeof e&&(Object.entries(e).forEach((e=>{let[t,n]=e;void 0===u[t]&&(s[t]?s[t].forEach((e=>{n?(0,i.p)("feat-"+t,[],void 0,e,r):(0,i.p)("block-"+t,[],void 0,e,r),(0,i.p)("rumresp-"+t,[Boolean(n)],void 0,e,r)})):n&&(0,i.p)("feat-"+t,[],void 0,void 0,r),u[t]=Boolean(n))})),Object.keys(s).forEach((e=>{void 0===u[e]&&(s[e]?.forEach((t=>(0,i.p)("rumresp-"+e,[!1],void 0,t,r))),u[e]=!1)})),(0,o.L)(t,a.D.pageViewEvent))}const u={}},2210:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{X:()=>i});var n=Object.prototype.hasOwnProperty;function i(e,t,r){if(n.call(e,t))return e[t];var i=r();if(Object.defineProperty&&Object.keys)try{return Object.defineProperty(e,t,{value:i,writable:!0,enumerable:!1}),i}catch(e){}return e[t]=i,i}},1284:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{D:()=>n});const n=(e,t)=>Object.entries(e||{}).map((e=>{let[r,n]=e;return t(r,n)}))},4351:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{P:()=>o});var n=r(2177);const i=()=>{const e=new WeakSet;return(t,r)=>{if("object"==typeof r&&null!==r){if(e.has(r))return;e.add(r)}return r}};function o(e){try{return JSON.stringify(e,i())}catch(e){try{n.ee.emit("internal-error",[e])}catch(e){}}}},3960:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{K:()=>a,b:()=>o});var n=r(3239);function i(){return"undefined"==typeof document||"complete"===document.readyState}function o(e,t){if(i())return e();(0,n.bP)("load",e,t)}function a(e){if(i())return e();(0,n.iz)("DOMContentLoaded",e)}},8632:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{EZ:()=>u,Qy:()=>c,ce:()=>o,fP:()=>a,gG:()=>d,mF:()=>s});var n=r(7894),i=r(385);const o={beacon:"bam.nr-data.net",errorBeacon:"bam.nr-data.net"};function a(){return i._A.NREUM||(i._A.NREUM={}),void 0===i._A.newrelic&&(i._A.newrelic=i._A.NREUM),i._A.NREUM}function s(){let e=a();return e.o||(e.o={ST:i._A.setTimeout,SI:i._A.setImmediate,CT:i._A.clearTimeout,XHR:i._A.XMLHttpRequest,REQ:i._A.Request,EV:i._A.Event,PR:i._A.Promise,MO:i._A.MutationObserver,FETCH:i._A.fetch}),e}function c(e,t,r){let i=a();const o=i.initializedAgents||{},s=o[e]||{};return Object.keys(s).length||(s.initializedAt={ms:(0,n.z)(),date:new Date}),i.initializedAgents={...o,[e]:{...s,[r]:t}},i}function u(e,t){a()[e]=t}function d(){return function(){let e=a();const t=e.info||{};e.info={beacon:o.beacon,errorBeacon:o.errorBeacon,...t}}(),function(){let e=a();const t=e.init||{};e.init={...t}}(),s(),function(){let e=a();const t=e.loader_config||{};e.loader_config={...t}}(),a()}},7956:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{N:()=>i});var n=r(3239);function i(e){let t=arguments.length>1&&void 0!==arguments[1]&&arguments[1],r=arguments.length>2?arguments[2]:void 0,i=arguments.length>3?arguments[3]:void 0;return void(0,n.iz)("visibilitychange",(function(){if(t)return void("hidden"==document.visibilityState&&e());e(document.visibilityState)}),r,i)}},1214:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{em:()=>v,u5:()=>N,QU:()=>S,_L:()=>I,Gm:()=>L,Lg:()=>M,gy:()=>U,BV:()=>Q,Kf:()=>ee});var n=r(2177);const i="nr@original";var o=Object.prototype.hasOwnProperty,a=!1;function s(e,t){return e||(e=n.ee),r.inPlace=function(e,t,n,i,o){n||(n="");var a,s,c,u="-"===n.charAt(0);for(c=0;c 2?n-2:0),o=2;o {r(A[T],e,w),r(E[T],e,w)})),r(l._A,"fetch",y),t.on(y+"end",(function(e,r){var n=this;if(r){var i=r.headers.get("content-length");null!==i&&(n.rxSize=i),t.emit(y+"done",[null,r],n)}else t.emit(y+"done",[e],n)})),t}const O={},j=["pushState","replaceState"];function S(e){const t=function(e){return(e||n.ee).get("history")}(e);return!l.il||O[t.debugId]++||(O[t.debugId]=1,s(t).inPlace(window.history,j,"-")),t}var P=r(3239);const C={},R=["appendChild","insertBefore","replaceChild"];function I(e){const t=function(e){return(e||n.ee).get("jsonp")}(e);if(!l.il||C[t.debugId])return t;C[t.debugId]=!0;var r=s(t),i=/[?&](?:callback|cb)=([^&#]+)/,o=/(.*)\.([^.]+)/,a=/^(\w+)(\.|$)(.*)$/;function c(e,t){var r=e.match(a),n=r[1],i=r[3];return i?c(i,t[n]):t[n]}return r.inPlace(Node.prototype,R,"dom-"),t.on("dom-start",(function(e){!function(e){if(!e||"string"!=typeof e.nodeName||"script"!==e.nodeName.toLowerCase())return;if("function"!=typeof e.addEventListener)return;var n=(a=e.src,s=a.match(i),s?s[1]:null);var a,s;if(!n)return;var u=function(e){var t=e.match(o);if(t&&t.length>=3)return{key:t[2],parent:c(t[1],window)};return{key:e,parent:window}}(n);if("function"!=typeof u.parent[u.key])return;var d={};function f(){t.emit("jsonp-end",[],d),e.removeEventListener("load",f,(0,P.m$)(!1)),e.removeEventListener("error",l,(0,P.m$)(!1))}function l(){t.emit("jsonp-error",[],d),t.emit("jsonp-end",[],d),e.removeEventListener("load",f,(0,P.m$)(!1)),e.removeEventListener("error",l,(0,P.m$)(!1))}r.inPlace(u.parent,[u.key],"cb-",d),e.addEventListener("load",f,(0,P.m$)(!1)),e.addEventListener("error",l,(0,P.m$)(!1)),t.emit("new-jsonp",[e.src],d)}(e[0])})),t}var k=r(5763);const H={};function L(e){const t=function(e){return(e||n.ee).get("mutation")}(e);if(!l.il||H[t.debugId])return t;H[t.debugId]=!0;var r=s(t),i=k.Yu.MO;return i&&(window.MutationObserver=function(e){return this instanceof i?new i(r(e,"fn-")):i.apply(this,arguments)},MutationObserver.prototype=i.prototype),t}const z={};function M(e){const t=function(e){return(e||n.ee).get("promise")}(e);if(z[t.debugId])return t;z[t.debugId]=!0;var r=n.c,o=s(t),a=k.Yu.PR;return a&&function(){function e(r){var n=t.context(),i=o(r,"executor-",n,null,!1);const s=Reflect.construct(a,[i],e);return t.context(s).getCtx=function(){return n},s}l._A.Promise=e,Object.defineProperty(e,"name",{value:"Promise"}),e.toString=function(){return a.toString()},Object.setPrototypeOf(e,a),["all","race"].forEach((function(r){const n=a[r];e[r]=function(e){let i=!1;[...e||[]].forEach((e=>{this.resolve(e).then(a("all"===r),a(!1))}));const o=n.apply(this,arguments);return o;function a(e){return function(){t.emit("propagate",[null,!i],o,!1,!1),i=i||!e}}}})),["resolve","reject"].forEach((function(r){const n=a[r];e[r]=function(e){const r=n.apply(this,arguments);return e!==r&&t.emit("propagate",[e,!0],r,!1,!1),r}})),e.prototype=a.prototype;const n=a.prototype.then;a.prototype.then=function(){var e=this,i=r(e);i.promise=e;for(var a=arguments.length,s=new Array(a),c=0;c e())),t};function m(e,t){i.inPlace(t,["onreadystatechange"],"fn-",E)}function b(){var e=this,t=r.context(e);e.readyState>3&&!t.resolved&&(t.resolved=!0,r.emit("xhr-resolved",[],e)),i.inPlace(e,f,"fn-",E)}if(function(e,t){for(var r in e)t[r]=e[r]}(o,p),p.prototype=o.prototype,i.inPlace(p.prototype,J,"-xhr-",E),r.on("send-xhr-start",(function(e,t){m(e,t),function(e){h.push(e),a&&(y?y.then(A):u?u(A):(w=-w,x.data=w))}(t)})),r.on("open-xhr-start",m),a){var y=c&&c.resolve();if(!u&&!c){var w=1,x=document.createTextNode(w);new a(A).observe(x,{characterData:!0})}}else t.on("fn-end",(function(e){e[0]&&e[0].type===d||A()}));function A(){for(var e=0;e {r.d(t,{t:()=>n});const n=r(3325).D.ajax},6660:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{A:()=>i,t:()=>n});const n=r(3325).D.jserrors,i="nr@seenError"},3081:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{gF:()=>o,mY:()=>i,t9:()=>n,vz:()=>s,xS:()=>a});const n=r(3325).D.metrics,i="sm",o="cm",a="storeSupportabilityMetrics",s="storeEventMetrics"},4649:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{t:()=>n});const n=r(3325).D.pageAction},7633:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{Dz:()=>i,OJ:()=>a,qw:()=>o,t9:()=>n});const n=r(3325).D.pageViewEvent,i="firstbyte",o="domcontent",a="windowload"},9251:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{t:()=>n});const n=r(3325).D.pageViewTiming},3614:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{BST_RESOURCE:()=>i,END:()=>s,FEATURE_NAME:()=>n,FN_END:()=>u,FN_START:()=>c,PUSH_STATE:()=>d,RESOURCE:()=>o,START:()=>a});const n=r(3325).D.sessionTrace,i="bstResource",o="resource",a="-start",s="-end",c="fn"+a,u="fn"+s,d="pushState"},7836:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{BODY:()=>A,CB_END:()=>E,CB_START:()=>u,END:()=>x,FEATURE_NAME:()=>i,FETCH:()=>_,FETCH_BODY:()=>v,FETCH_DONE:()=>m,FETCH_START:()=>p,FN_END:()=>c,FN_START:()=>s,INTERACTION:()=>l,INTERACTION_API:()=>d,INTERACTION_EVENTS:()=>o,JSONP_END:()=>b,JSONP_NODE:()=>g,JS_TIME:()=>T,MAX_TIMER_BUDGET:()=>a,REMAINING:()=>f,SPA_NODE:()=>h,START:()=>w,originalSetTimeout:()=>y});var n=r(5763);const i=r(3325).D.spa,o=["click","submit","keypress","keydown","keyup","change"],a=999,s="fn-start",c="fn-end",u="cb-start",d="api-ixn-",f="remaining",l="interaction",h="spaNode",g="jsonpNode",p="fetch-start",m="fetch-done",v="fetch-body-",b="jsonp-end",y=n.Yu.ST,w="-start",x="-end",A="-body",E="cb"+x,T="jsTime",_="fetch"},5938:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{W:()=>o});var n=r(5763),i=r(2177);class o{constructor(e,t,r){this.agentIdentifier=e,this.aggregator=t,this.ee=i.ee.get(e,(0,n.OP)(this.agentIdentifier).isolatedBacklog),this.featureName=r,this.blocked=!1}}},9144:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{j:()=>m});var n=r(3325),i=r(5763),o=r(5546),a=r(2177),s=r(7894),c=r(8e3),u=r(3960),d=r(385),f=r(50),l=r(3081),h=r(8632);function g(){const e=(0,h.gG)();["setErrorHandler","finished","addToTrace","inlineHit","addRelease","addPageAction","setCurrentRouteName","setPageViewName","setCustomAttribute","interaction","noticeError","setUserId"].forEach((t=>{e[t]=function(){for(var r=arguments.length,n=new Array(r),i=0;i 1?r-1:0),i=1;i {e.exposed&&e.api[t]&&o.push(e.api[t](...n))})),o.length>1?o:o[0]}(t,...n)}}))}var p=r(2587);function m(e){let t=arguments.length>1&&void 0!==arguments[1]?arguments[1]:{},m=arguments.length>2?arguments[2]:void 0,v=arguments.length>3?arguments[3]:void 0,{init:b,info:y,loader_config:w,runtime:x={loaderType:m},exposed:A=!0}=t;const E=(0,h.gG)();y||(b=E.init,y=E.info,w=E.loader_config),(0,i.Dg)(e,b||{}),(0,i.GE)(e,w||{}),(0,i.sU)(e,x),y.jsAttributes??={},d.v6&&(y.jsAttributes.isWorker=!0),(0,i.CX)(e,y),g();const T=function(e,t){t||(0,c.R)(e,"api");const h={};var g=a.ee.get(e),p=g.get("tracer"),m="api-",v=m+"ixn-";function b(t,r,n,o){const a=(0,i.C5)(e);return null===r?delete a.jsAttributes[t]:(0,i.CX)(e,{...a,jsAttributes:{...a.jsAttributes,[t]:r}}),x(m,n,!0,o||null===r?"session":void 0)(t,r)}function y(){}["setErrorHandler","finished","addToTrace","inlineHit","addRelease"].forEach((e=>h[e]=x(m,e,!0,"api"))),h.addPageAction=x(m,"addPageAction",!0,n.D.pageAction),h.setCurrentRouteName=x(m,"routeName",!0,n.D.spa),h.setPageViewName=function(t,r){if("string"==typeof t)return"/"!==t.charAt(0)&&(t="/"+t),(0,i.OP)(e).customTransaction=(r||"http://custom.transaction")+t,x(m,"setPageViewName",!0)()},h.setCustomAttribute=function(e,t){let r=arguments.length>2&&void 0!==arguments[2]&&arguments[2];if("string"==typeof e){if(["string","number"].includes(typeof t)||null===t)return b(e,t,"setCustomAttribute",r);(0,f.Z)("Failed to execute setCustomAttribute.\nNon-null value must be a string or number type, but a type of was provided."))}else(0,f.Z)("Failed to execute setCustomAttribute.\nName must be a string type, but a type of was provided."))},h.setUserId=function(e){if("string"==typeof e||null===e)return b("enduser.id",e,"setUserId",!0);(0,f.Z)("Failed to execute setUserId.\nNon-null value must be a string type, but a type of was provided."))},h.interaction=function(){return(new y).get()};var w=y.prototype={createTracer:function(e,t){var r={},i=this,a="function"==typeof t;return(0,o.p)(v+"tracer",[(0,s.z)(),e,r],i,n.D.spa,g),function(){if(p.emit((a?"":"no-")+"fn-start",[(0,s.z)(),i,a],r),a)try{return t.apply(this,arguments)}catch(e){throw p.emit("fn-err",[arguments,this,"string"==typeof e?new Error(e):e],r),e}finally{p.emit("fn-end",[(0,s.z)()],r)}}}};function x(e,t,r,i){return function(){return(0,o.p)(l.xS,["API/"+t+"/called"],void 0,n.D.metrics,g),i&&(0,o.p)(e+t,[(0,s.z)(),...arguments],r?null:this,i,g),r?void 0:this}}function A(){r.e(439).then(r.bind(r,7438)).then((t=>{let{setAPI:r}=t;r(e),(0,c.L)(e,"api")})).catch((()=>(0,f.Z)("Downloading runtime APIs failed...")))}return["actionText","setName","setAttribute","save","ignore","onEnd","getContext","end","get"].forEach((e=>{w[e]=x(v,e,void 0,n.D.spa)})),h.noticeError=function(e,t){"string"==typeof e&&(e=new Error(e)),(0,o.p)(l.xS,["API/noticeError/called"],void 0,n.D.metrics,g),(0,o.p)("err",[e,(0,s.z)(),!1,t],void 0,n.D.jserrors,g)},d.il?(0,u.b)((()=>A()),!0):A(),h}(e,v);return(0,h.Qy)(e,T,"api"),(0,h.Qy)(e,A,"exposed"),(0,h.EZ)("activatedFeatures",p.T),T}},3325:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{D:()=>n,p:()=>i});const n={ajax:"ajax",jserrors:"jserrors",metrics:"metrics",pageAction:"page_action",pageViewEvent:"page_view_event",pageViewTiming:"page_view_timing",sessionReplay:"session_replay",sessionTrace:"session_trace",spa:"spa"},i={[n.pageViewEvent]:1,[n.pageViewTiming]:2,[n.metrics]:3,[n.jserrors]:4,[n.ajax]:5,[n.sessionTrace]:6,[n.pageAction]:7,[n.spa]:8,[n.sessionReplay]:9}}},n={};function i(e){var t=n[e];if(void 0!==t)return t.exports;var o=n[e]={exports:{}};return r[e](o,o.exports,i),o.exports}i.m=r,i.d=(e,t)=>{for(var r in t)i.o(t,r)&&!i.o(e,r)&&Object.defineProperty(e,r,{enumerable:!0,get:t[r]})},i.f={},i.e=e=>Promise.all(Object.keys(i.f).reduce(((t,r)=>(i.f[r](e,t),t)),[])),i.u=e=>(({78:"page_action-aggregate",147:"metrics-aggregate",242:"session-manager",317:"jserrors-aggregate",348:"page_view_timing-aggregate",412:"lazy-feature-loader",439:"async-api",538:"recorder",590:"session_replay-aggregate",675:"compressor",733:"session_trace-aggregate",786:"page_view_event-aggregate",873:"spa-aggregate",898:"ajax-aggregate"}[e]||e)+"."+{78:"ac76d497",147:"3dc53903",148:"1a20d5fe",242:"2a64278a",317:"49e41428",348:"bd6de33a",412:"2f55ce66",439:"30bd804e",538:"1b18459f",590:"cf0efb30",675:"ae9f91a8",733:"83105561",786:"06482edd",860:"03a8b7a5",873:"e6b09d52",898:"998ef92b"}[e]+"-1.236.0.min.js"),i.o=(e,t)=>Object.prototype.hasOwnProperty.call(e,t),e={},t="NRBA:",i.l=(r,n,o,a)=>{if(e[r])e[r].push(n);else{var s,c;if(void 0!==o)for(var u=document.getElementsByTagName("script"),d=0;d {s.onerror=s.onload=null,clearTimeout(h);var i=e[r];if(delete e[r],s.parentNode&&s.parentNode.removeChild(s),i&&i.forEach((e=>e(n))),t)return t(n)},h=setTimeout(l.bind(null,void 0,{type:"timeout",target:s}),12e4);s.onerror=l.bind(null,s.onerror),s.onload=l.bind(null,s.onload),c&&document.head.appendChild(s)}},i.r=e=>{"undefined"!=typeof Symbol&&Symbol.toStringTag&&Object.defineProperty(e,Symbol.toStringTag,{value:"Module"}),Object.defineProperty(e,"__esModule",{value:!0})},i.j=364,i.p="https://js-agent.newrelic.com/",(()=>{var e={364:0,953:0};i.f.j=(t,r)=>{var n=i.o(e,t)?e[t]:void 0;if(0!==n)if(n)r.push(n[2]);else{var o=new Promise(((r,i)=>n=e[t]=[r,i]));r.push(n[2]=o);var a=i.p+i.u(t),s=new Error;i.l(a,(r=>{if(i.o(e,t)&&(0!==(n=e[t])&&(e[t]=void 0),n)){var o=r&&("load"===r.type?"missing":r.type),a=r&&r.target&&r.target.src;s.message="Loading chunk "+t+" failed.\n("+o+": "+a+")",s.name="ChunkLoadError",s.type=o,s.request=a,n[1](s)}}),"chunk-"+t,t)}};var t=(t,r)=>{var n,o,[a,s,c]=r,u=0;if(a.some((t=>0!==e[t]))){for(n in s)i.o(s,n)&&(i.m[n]=s[n]);if(c)c(i)}for(t&&t(r);u {i.r(o);var e=i(3325),t=i(5763);const r=Object.values(e.D);function n(e){const n={};return r.forEach((r=>{n[r]=function(e,r){return!1!==(0,t.Mt)(r,"".concat(e,".enabled"))}(r,e)})),n}var a=i(9144);var s=i(5546),c=i(385),u=i(8e3),d=i(5938),f=i(3960),l=i(50);class h extends d.W{constructor(e,t,r){let n=!(arguments.length>3&&void 0!==arguments[3])||arguments[3];super(e,t,r),this.auto=n,this.abortHandler,this.featAggregate,this.onAggregateImported,n&&(0,u.R)(e,r)}importAggregator(){let e=arguments.length>0&&void 0!==arguments[0]?arguments[0]:{};if(this.featAggregate||!this.auto)return;const r=c.il&&!0===(0,t.Mt)(this.agentIdentifier,"privacy.cookies_enabled");let n;this.onAggregateImported=new Promise((e=>{n=e}));const o=async()=>{let t;try{if(r){const{setupAgentSession:e}=await Promise.all([i.e(860),i.e(242)]).then(i.bind(i,3228));t=e(this.agentIdentifier)}}catch(e){(0,l.Z)("A problem occurred when starting up session manager. This page will not start or extend any session.",e)}try{if(!this.shouldImportAgg(this.featureName,t))return void(0,u.L)(this.agentIdentifier,this.featureName);const{lazyFeatureLoader:r}=await i.e(412).then(i.bind(i,8582)),{Aggregate:o}=await r(this.featureName,"aggregate");this.featAggregate=new o(this.agentIdentifier,this.aggregator,e),n(!0)}catch(e){(0,l.Z)("Downloading and initializing ".concat(this.featureName," failed..."),e),this.abortHandler?.(),n(!1)}};c.il?(0,f.b)((()=>o()),!0):o()}shouldImportAgg(r,n){return r!==e.D.sessionReplay||!1!==(0,t.Mt)(this.agentIdentifier,"session_trace.enabled")&&(!!n?.isNew||!!n?.state.sessionReplay)}}var g=i(7633),p=i(7894);class m extends h{static featureName=g.t9;constructor(r,n){let i=!(arguments.length>2&&void 0!==arguments[2])||arguments[2];if(super(r,n,g.t9,i),("undefined"==typeof PerformanceNavigationTiming||c.Tt)&&"undefined"!=typeof PerformanceTiming){const n=(0,t.OP)(r);n[g.Dz]=Math.max(Date.now()-n.offset,0),(0,f.K)((()=>n[g.qw]=Math.max((0,p.z)()-n[g.Dz],0))),(0,f.b)((()=>{const t=(0,p.z)();n[g.OJ]=Math.max(t-n[g.Dz],0),(0,s.p)("timing",["load",t],void 0,e.D.pageViewTiming,this.ee)}))}this.importAggregator()}}var v=i(1117),b=i(1284);class y extends v.w{constructor(e){super(e),this.aggregatedData={}}store(e,t,r,n,i){var o=this.getBucket(e,t,r,i);return o.metrics=function(e,t){t||(t={count:0});return t.count+=1,(0,b.D)(e,(function(e,r){t[e]=w(r,t[e])})),t}(n,o.metrics),o}merge(e,t,r,n,i){var o=this.getBucket(e,t,n,i);if(o.metrics){var a=o.metrics;a.count+=r.count,(0,b.D)(r,(function(e,t){if("count"!==e){var n=a[e],i=r[e];i&&!i.c?a[e]=w(i.t,n):a[e]=function(e,t){if(!t)return e;t.c||(t=x(t.t));return t.min=Math.min(e.min,t.min),t.max=Math.max(e.max,t.max),t.t+=e.t,t.sos+=e.sos,t.c+=e.c,t}(i,a[e])}}))}else o.metrics=r}storeMetric(e,t,r,n){var i=this.getBucket(e,t,r);return i.stats=w(n,i.stats),i}getBucket(e,t,r,n){this.aggregatedData[e]||(this.aggregatedData[e]={});var i=this.aggregatedData[e][t];return i||(i=this.aggregatedData[e][t]={params:r||{}},n&&(i.custom=n)),i}get(e,t){return t?this.aggregatedData[e]&&this.aggregatedData[e][t]:this.aggregatedData[e]}take(e){for(var t={},r="",n=!1,i=0;i t.max&&(t.max=e),e 2&&void 0!==arguments[2])||arguments[2];super(e,r,j.t,n),c.il&&((0,t.OP)(e).initHidden=Boolean("hidden"===document.visibilityState),(0,N.N)((()=>(0,s.p)("docHidden",[(0,p.z)()],void 0,j.t,this.ee)),!0),(0,O.bP)("pagehide",(()=>(0,s.p)("winPagehide",[(0,p.z)()],void 0,j.t,this.ee))),this.importAggregator())}}var P=i(3081);class C extends h{static featureName=P.t9;constructor(e,t){let r=!(arguments.length>2&&void 0!==arguments[2])||arguments[2];super(e,t,P.t9,r),this.importAggregator()}}var R,I=i(2210),k=i(1214),H=i(2177),L={};try{R=localStorage.getItem("__nr_flags").split(","),console&&"function"==typeof console.log&&(L.console=!0,-1!==R.indexOf("dev")&&(L.dev=!0),-1!==R.indexOf("nr_dev")&&(L.nrDev=!0))}catch(e){}function z(e){try{L.console&&z(e)}catch(e){}}L.nrDev&&H.ee.on("internal-error",(function(e){z(e.stack)})),L.dev&&H.ee.on("fn-err",(function(e,t,r){z(r.stack)})),L.dev&&(z("NR AGENT IN DEVELOPMENT MODE"),z("flags: "+(0,b.D)(L,(function(e,t){return e})).join(", ")));var M=i(6660);class B extends h{static featureName=M.t;constructor(r,n){let i=!(arguments.length>2&&void 0!==arguments[2])||arguments[2];super(r,n,M.t,i),this.skipNext=0;try{this.removeOnAbort=new AbortController}catch(e){}const o=this;o.ee.on("fn-start",(function(e,t,r){o.abortHandler&&(o.skipNext+=1)})),o.ee.on("fn-err",(function(t,r,n){o.abortHandler&&!n[M.A]&&((0,I.X)(n,M.A,(function(){return!0})),this.thrown=!0,(0,s.p)("err",[n,(0,p.z)()],void 0,e.D.jserrors,o.ee))})),o.ee.on("fn-end",(function(){o.abortHandler&&!this.thrown&&o.skipNext>0&&(o.skipNext-=1)})),o.ee.on("internal-error",(function(t){(0,s.p)("ierr",[t,(0,p.z)(),!0],void 0,e.D.jserrors,o.ee)})),this.origOnerror=c._A.onerror,c._A.onerror=this.onerrorHandler.bind(this),c._A.addEventListener("unhandledrejection",(t=>{const r=function(e){let t="Unhandled Promise Rejection: ";if(e instanceof Error)try{return e.message=t+e.message,e}catch(t){return e}if(void 0===e)return new Error(t);try{return new Error(t+(0,D.P)(e))}catch(e){return new Error(t)}}(t.reason);(0,s.p)("err",[r,(0,p.z)(),!1,{unhandledPromiseRejection:1}],void 0,e.D.jserrors,this.ee)}),(0,O.m$)(!1,this.removeOnAbort?.signal)),(0,k.gy)(this.ee),(0,k.BV)(this.ee),(0,k.em)(this.ee),(0,t.OP)(r).xhrWrappable&&(0,k.Kf)(this.ee),this.abortHandler=this.#e,this.importAggregator()}#e(){this.removeOnAbort?.abort(),this.abortHandler=void 0}onerrorHandler(t,r,n,i,o){"function"==typeof this.origOnerror&&this.origOnerror(...arguments);try{this.skipNext?this.skipNext-=1:(0,s.p)("err",[o||new F(t,r,n),(0,p.z)()],void 0,e.D.jserrors,this.ee)}catch(t){try{(0,s.p)("ierr",[t,(0,p.z)(),!0],void 0,e.D.jserrors,this.ee)}catch(e){}}return!1}}function F(e,t,r){this.message=e||"Uncaught error with no additional information",this.sourceURL=t,this.line=r}let U=1;const q="nr@id";function G(e){const t=typeof e;return!e||"object"!==t&&"function"!==t?-1:e===c._A?0:(0,I.X)(e,q,(function(){return U++}))}function V(e){if("string"==typeof e&&e.length)return e.length;if("object"==typeof e){if("undefined"!=typeof ArrayBuffer&&e instanceof ArrayBuffer&&e.byteLength)return e.byteLength;if("undefined"!=typeof Blob&&e instanceof Blob&&e.size)return e.size;if(!("undefined"!=typeof FormData&&e instanceof FormData))try{return(0,D.P)(e).length}catch(e){return}}}var X=i(7243);class W{constructor(e){this.agentIdentifier=e,this.generateTracePayload=this.generateTracePayload.bind(this),this.shouldGenerateTrace=this.shouldGenerateTrace.bind(this)}generateTracePayload(e){if(!this.shouldGenerateTrace(e))return null;var r=(0,t.DL)(this.agentIdentifier);if(!r)return null;var n=(r.accountID||"").toString()||null,i=(r.agentID||"").toString()||null,o=(r.trustKey||"").toString()||null;if(!n||!i)return null;var a=(0,_.M)(),s=(0,_.Ht)(),c=Date.now(),u={spanId:a,traceId:s,timestamp:c};return(e.sameOrigin||this.isAllowedOrigin(e)&&this.useTraceContextHeadersForCors())&&(u.traceContextParentHeader=this.generateTraceContextParentHeader(a,s),u.traceContextStateHeader=this.generateTraceContextStateHeader(a,c,n,i,o)),(e.sameOrigin&&!this.excludeNewrelicHeader()||!e.sameOrigin&&this.isAllowedOrigin(e)&&this.useNewrelicHeaderForCors())&&(u.newrelicHeader=this.generateTraceHeader(a,s,c,n,i,o)),u}generateTraceContextParentHeader(e,t){return"00-"+t+"-"+e+"-01"}generateTraceContextStateHeader(e,t,r,n,i){return i+"@nr=0-1-"+r+"-"+n+"-"+e+"----"+t}generateTraceHeader(e,t,r,n,i,o){if(!("function"==typeof c._A?.btoa))return null;var a={v:[0,1],d:{ty:"Browser",ac:n,ap:i,id:e,tr:t,ti:r}};return o&&n!==o&&(a.d.tk=o),btoa((0,D.P)(a))}shouldGenerateTrace(e){return this.isDtEnabled()&&this.isAllowedOrigin(e)}isAllowedOrigin(e){var r=!1,n={};if((0,t.Mt)(this.agentIdentifier,"distributed_tracing")&&(n=(0,t.P_)(this.agentIdentifier).distributed_tracing),e.sameOrigin)r=!0;else if(n.allowed_origins instanceof Array)for(var i=0;i 2&&void 0!==arguments[2])||arguments[2];super(r,n,Z.t,i),(0,t.OP)(r).xhrWrappable&&(this.dt=new W(r),this.handler=(e,t,r,n)=>(0,s.p)(e,t,r,n,this.ee),(0,k.u5)(this.ee),(0,k.Kf)(this.ee),function(r,n,i,o){function a(e){var t=this;t.totalCbs=0,t.called=0,t.cbTime=0,t.end=E,t.ended=!1,t.xhrGuids={},t.lastSize=null,t.loadCaptureCalled=!1,t.params=this.params||{},t.metrics=this.metrics||{},e.addEventListener("load",(function(r){_(t,e)}),(0,O.m$)(!1)),c.IF||e.addEventListener("progress",(function(e){t.lastSize=e.loaded}),(0,O.m$)(!1))}function s(e){this.params={method:e[0]},T(this,e[1]),this.metrics={}}function u(e,n){var i=(0,t.DL)(r);i.xpid&&this.sameOrigin&&n.setRequestHeader("X-NewRelic-ID",i.xpid);var a=o.generateTracePayload(this.parsedOrigin);if(a){var s=!1;a.newrelicHeader&&(n.setRequestHeader("newrelic",a.newrelicHeader),s=!0),a.traceContextParentHeader&&(n.setRequestHeader("traceparent",a.traceContextParentHeader),a.traceContextStateHeader&&n.setRequestHeader("tracestate",a.traceContextStateHeader),s=!0),s&&(this.dt=a)}}function d(e,t){var r=this.metrics,i=e[0],o=this;if(r&&i){var a=V(i);a&&(r.txSize=a)}this.startTime=(0,p.z)(),this.listener=function(e){try{"abort"!==e.type||o.loadCaptureCalled||(o.params.aborted=!0),("load"!==e.type||o.called===o.totalCbs&&(o.onloadCalled||"function"!=typeof t.onload)&&"function"==typeof o.end)&&o.end(t)}catch(e){try{n.emit("internal-error",[e])}catch(e){}}};for(var s=0;s 1?e[1]=i:e.push(i)}else e[0]&&e[0].headers&&s(e[0].headers,n)&&(this.dt=n);function s(e,t){var r=!1;return t.newrelicHeader&&(e.set("newrelic",t.newrelicHeader),r=!0),t.traceContextParentHeader&&(e.set("traceparent",t.traceContextParentHeader),t.traceContextStateHeader&&e.set("tracestate",t.traceContextStateHeader),r=!0),r}}function x(e,t){this.params={},this.metrics={},this.startTime=(0,p.z)(),this.dt=t,e.length>=1&&(this.target=e[0]),e.length>=2&&(this.opts=e[1]);var r,n=this.opts||{},i=this.target;"string"==typeof i?r=i:"object"==typeof i&&i instanceof Y?r=i.url:c._A?.URL&&"object"==typeof i&&i instanceof URL&&(r=i.href),T(this,r);var o=(""+(i&&i instanceof Y&&i.method||n.method||"GET")).toUpperCase();this.params.method=o,this.txSize=V(n.body)||0}function A(t,r){var n;this.endTime=(0,p.z)(),this.params||(this.params={}),this.params.status=r?r.status:0,"string"==typeof this.rxSize&&this.rxSize.length>0&&(n=+this.rxSize);var o={txSize:this.txSize,rxSize:n,duration:(0,p.z)()-this.startTime};i("xhr",[this.params,o,this.startTime,this.endTime,"fetch"],this,e.D.ajax)}function E(t){var r=this.params,n=this.metrics;if(!this.ended){this.ended=!0;for(var o=0;o 2&&void 0!==arguments[2])||arguments[2];super(e,t,we.t,r),this.importAggregator()}}new class{constructor(e){let t=arguments.length>1&&void 0!==arguments[1]?arguments[1]:(0,_.ky)(16);c._A?(this.agentIdentifier=t,this.sharedAggregator=new y({agentIdentifier:this.agentIdentifier}),this.features={},this.desiredFeatures=new Set(e.features||[]),this.desiredFeatures.add(m),Object.assign(this,(0,a.j)(this.agentIdentifier,e,e.loaderType||"agent")),this.start()):(0,l.Z)("Failed to initial the agent. Could not determine the runtime environment.")}get config(){return{info:(0,t.C5)(this.agentIdentifier),init:(0,t.P_)(this.agentIdentifier),loader_config:(0,t.DL)(this.agentIdentifier),runtime:(0,t.OP)(this.agentIdentifier)}}start(){const t="features";try{const r=n(this.agentIdentifier),i=[...this.desiredFeatures];i.sort(((t,r)=>e.p[t.featureName]-e.p[r.featureName])),i.forEach((t=>{if(r[t.featureName]||t.featureName===e.D.pageViewEvent){const n=function(t){switch(t){case e.D.ajax:return[e.D.jserrors];case e.D.sessionTrace:return[e.D.ajax,e.D.pageViewEvent];case e.D.sessionReplay:return[e.D.sessionTrace];case e.D.pageViewTiming:return[e.D.pageViewEvent];default:return[]}}(t.featureName);n.every((e=>r[e]))||(0,l.Z)("".concat(t.featureName," is enabled but one or more dependent features has been disabled (").concat((0,D.P)(n),"). This may cause unintended consequences or missing data...")),this.features[t.featureName]=new t(this.agentIdentifier,this.sharedAggregator)}})),(0,T.Qy)(this.agentIdentifier,this.features,t)}catch(e){(0,l.Z)("Failed to initialize all enabled instrument classes (agent aborted) -",e);for(const e in this.features)this.features[e].abortHandler?.();const r=(0,T.fP)();return delete r.initializedAgents[this.agentIdentifier]?.api,delete r.initializedAgents[this.agentIdentifier]?.[t],delete this.sharedAggregator,r.ee?.abort(),delete r.ee?.get(this.agentIdentifier),!1}}}({features:[J,m,S,class extends h{static featureName=oe;constructor(t,r){if(super(t,r,oe,!(arguments.length>2&&void 0!==arguments[2])||arguments[2]),!c.il)return;const n=this.ee;let i;(0,k.QU)(n),this.eventsEE=(0,k.em)(n),this.eventsEE.on(se,(function(e,t){this.bstStart=(0,p.z)()})),this.eventsEE.on(ae,(function(t,r){(0,s.p)("bst",[t[0],r,this.bstStart,(0,p.z)()],void 0,e.D.sessionTrace,n)})),n.on(ce+ne,(function(e){this.time=(0,p.z)(),this.startPath=location.pathname+location.hash})),n.on(ce+ie,(function(t){(0,s.p)("bstHist",[location.pathname+location.hash,this.startPath,this.time],void 0,e.D.sessionTrace,n)}));try{i=new PerformanceObserver((t=>{const r=t.getEntries();(0,s.p)(te,[r],void 0,e.D.sessionTrace,n)})),i.observe({type:re,buffered:!0})}catch(e){}this.importAggregator({resourceObserver:i})}},C,xe,B,class extends h{static featureName=de;constructor(e,r){if(super(e,r,de,!(arguments.length>2&&void 0!==arguments[2])||arguments[2]),!c.il)return;if(!(0,t.OP)(e).xhrWrappable)return;try{this.removeOnAbort=new AbortController}catch(e){}let n,i=0;const o=this.ee.get("tracer"),a=(0,k._L)(this.ee),s=(0,k.Lg)(this.ee),u=(0,k.BV)(this.ee),d=(0,k.Kf)(this.ee),f=this.ee.get("events"),l=(0,k.u5)(this.ee),h=(0,k.QU)(this.ee),g=(0,k.Gm)(this.ee);function m(e,t){h.emit("newURL",[""+window.location,t])}function v(){i++,n=window.location.hash,this[ve]=(0,p.z)()}function b(){i--,window.location.hash!==n&&m(0,!0);var e=(0,p.z)();this[pe]=~~this[pe]+e-this[ve],this[ye]=e}function y(e,t){e.on(t,(function(){this[t]=(0,p.z)()}))}this.ee.on(ve,v),s.on(be,v),a.on(be,v),this.ee.on(ye,b),s.on(ge,b),a.on(ge,b),this.ee.buffer([ve,ye,"xhr-resolved"],this.featureName),f.buffer([ve],this.featureName),u.buffer(["setTimeout"+le,"clearTimeout"+fe,ve],this.featureName),d.buffer([ve,"new-xhr","send-xhr"+fe],this.featureName),l.buffer([me+fe,me+"-done",me+he+fe,me+he+le],this.featureName),h.buffer(["newURL"],this.featureName),g.buffer([ve],this.featureName),s.buffer(["propagate",be,ge,"executor-err","resolve"+fe],this.featureName),o.buffer([ve,"no-"+ve],this.featureName),a.buffer(["new-jsonp","cb-start","jsonp-error","jsonp-end"],this.featureName),y(l,me+fe),y(l,me+"-done"),y(a,"new-jsonp"),y(a,"jsonp-end"),y(a,"cb-start"),h.on("pushState-end",m),h.on("replaceState-end",m),window.addEventListener("hashchange",m,(0,O.m$)(!0,this.removeOnAbort?.signal)),window.addEventListener("load",m,(0,O.m$)(!0,this.removeOnAbort?.signal)),window.addEventListener("popstate",(function(){m(0,i>1)}),(0,O.m$)(!0,this.removeOnAbort?.signal)),this.abortHandler=this.#e,this.importAggregator()}#e(){this.removeOnAbort?.abort(),this.abortHandler=void 0}}],loaderType:"spa"})})(),window.NRBA=o})(); window.jQuery || document.write(' ') CKEDITOR_BASEPATH='https://f1000research.com/js/vendor/ckeditor/' window.reactTheme = 'research'; window.MathJax = { CommonHTML: { linebreaks: { automatic: true } }, 'HTML-CSS': { linebreaks: { automatic: true } }, SVG: { linebreaks: { automatic: true } }, AuthorInit: function() { MathJax.Hub.Register.MessageHook('End Process', function () { let timeout = false; // holder for timeout id const delay = 250; // delay after event is "complete" to run callback const reflowMath = function() { const dispFormulas = document.querySelectorAll('.disp-formula.panel'); if (!dispFormulas) { return; } for (const dispFormula of dispFormulas) { const child = dispFormula.querySelector('.MathJax_Preview').nextSibling.firstChild; const isMultiline = MathJax.Hub.getAllJax(dispFormula)[0].root.isMultiline; if (dispFormula.offsetWidth < child.offsetWidth || isMultiline) { MathJax.Hub.Queue(['Rerender', MathJax.Hub, dispFormula]); } } }; window.addEventListener('resize', function() { clearTimeout(timeout); // clear the timeout timeout = setTimeout(reflowMath, delay); // start timing for event "completion" }); }); }, }; if (window.location.hash == '#_=_'){ window.location = window.location.href.split('#')[0] } !function(f,b,e,v,n,t,s){if(f.fbq)return;n=f.fbq=function() {n.callMethod? n.callMethod.apply(n,arguments):n.queue.push(arguments)} ;if(!f._fbq)f._fbq=n; n.push=n;n.loaded=!0;n.version='2.0';n.queue=[];t=b.createElement(e);t.async=!0; t.src=v;s=b.getElementsByTagName(e)[0];s.parentNode.insertBefore(t,s)}(window, document,'script','https://connect.facebook.net/en_US/fbevents.js'); fbq('init', '1641728616063202'); fbq('track', "PixelInitialized", {}); (function(h,o,t,j,a,r){ h.hj=h.hj||function(){(h.hj.q=h.hj.q||[]).push(arguments)}; h._hjSettings={hjid:2318163,hjsv:6}; a=o.getElementsByTagName('head')[0]; r=o.createElement('script');r.async=1; r.src=t+h._hjSettings.hjid+j+h._hjSettings.hjsv; a.appendChild(r); })(window,document,'https://static.hotjar.com/c/hotjar-','.js?sv='); search file_upload Submit your research search menu close search Browse Gateways & Collections How to Publish Submit your Research My Submissions Article Guidelines Article Guidelines (New Versions) Open Data, Software and Code Guidelines Open Data and Accessible Source Materials Guidelines (HSS) Open Data, Software and Code Guidelines (PSE) Prepublication Checks Production Process Posters and Slides Guidelines Document Guidelines Article Processing Charges Peer Review Finding Article Reviewers About How it Works For Reviewers Our Advisors Policies Glossary FAQs For Developers Newsroom Contact My Research Submissions Content and Tracking Alerts My Details Sign In file_upload Submit your research { "@context": "https://schema.org", "@type": "ScholarlyArticle", "mainEntityOfPage": { "@type": "WebPage", "@id": "https://f1000research.com/articles/14-641" }, "headline": "University Dropout Among Indigenous University Students: A Global Systematic Review", "datePublished": "2025-07-02T13:17:50", "dateModified": "2025-12-12T00:58:22", "author": [ { "@type": "Person", "name": "Raúl Quincho-Apumayta" }, { "@type": "Person", "name": "Javier Carrillo Cayllahua" }, { "@type": "Person", "name": "Abraham Ccencho Pari" }, { "@type": "Person", "name": "Vilma Inga Choque" }, { "@type": "Person", "name": "Juan Cárdenas-Valverde" } ], "publisher": { "@type": "Organization", "name": "F1000Research", "logo": { "@type": "ImageObject", "url": "https://f1000research.com/img/AMP/F1000Research_image.png", "height": 480, "width": 60 } }, "image": { "@type": "ImageObject", "url": "https://f1000research.com/img/AMP/F1000Research_image.png", "height": 1200, "width": 150 }, "description": " Background University dropout among indigenous students is a multifactorial phenomenon that significantly impacts education and equity. This systematic review aimed to consolidate global evidence on risk and protective factors associated with university dropout among indigenous populations. Methods A systematic review was conducted following PRISMA 2020 criteria, encompassing ten databases (Web of Science, Scopus, LILACS, Dialnet, PubMed/MEDLINE, Redalyc, Scielo, DOAJ, Latindex, and CLASE) from October 29, 2024, to November 30, 2024. Out of 23,403 initial records, 21 studies met the inclusion criteria, analyzing indigenous university students and their educational trajectories. Two independent reviewers conducted the study selection and data extraction, ensuring minimized bias. Variables included demographic characteristics, geographic context, academic field, dropout rates, and related factors. Results were synthesized through descriptive analysis, focusing on quantitative data. Results Among the 226,049 participants across 21 studies, only 2,340 (1.03%) were indigenous university students, predominantly from South America (9/21 studies). The average dropout rate was 33.59%, ranging from 20% to 66%, with the highest rates reported among female students in six studies (28.57%). However, three studies highlighted higher dropout rates among male students (14.29%). Economic barriers were the primary risk factor (85.7%), followed by linguistic challenges (47.6%) and geographic limitations (33.3%). Protective factors included financial support (76.2%), academic mentorship (47.6%), and social support (42.8%). Public universities accounted for most participants (17/21 studies), with limited representation from private institutions. Despite significant dropout rates, only seven studies provided detailed prevalence data. Conclusion This review highlights systemic inequities contributing to indigenous university dropout, emphasizing economic, linguistic, and geographic barriers. While financial support and mentorship are effective interventions, their implementation remains inconsistent. Addressing these disparities through targeted policies, culturally inclusive curricula, and equitable resource distribution is essential to reducing dropout rates and fostering academic retention among indigenous students. " } { "@context": "http://schema.org", "@type": "BreadcrumbList", "itemListElement": [ { "@type": "ListItem", "position": "1", "item": { "@id": "https://f1000research.com/", "name": "Home" } }, { "@type": "ListItem", "position": "2", "item": { "@id": "https://f1000research.com/browse/articles", "name": "Browse" } }, { "@type": "ListItem", "position": "3", "item": { "@id": "https://f1000research.com/articles/14-641", "name": "University Dropout Among Indigenous University Students: A Global..." } } ] } Home Browse University Dropout Among Indigenous University Students: A Global... ALL Metrics - Views Downloads Get PDF Get XML Cite How to cite this article Quincho-Apumayta R, Carrillo Cayllahua J, Ccencho Pari A et al. University Dropout Among Indigenous University Students: A Global Systematic Review [version 2; peer review: 1 approved with reservations, 1 not approved] . F1000Research 2025, 14 :641 ( https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.162508.2 ) NOTE: If applicable, it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in all citations of this article. Close Copy Citation Details Export Export Citation Sciwheel EndNote Ref. Manager Bibtex ProCite Sente EXPORT Select a format first Track Share ▬ ✚ Systematic Review Revised University Dropout Among Indigenous University Students: A Global Systematic Review [version 2; peer review: 1 approved with reservations, 1 not approved] Raúl Quincho-Apumayta https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7944-1137 1 , Javier Carrillo Cayllahua 1 , Abraham Ccencho Pari 1 , Vilma Inga Choque 1 , Juan Cárdenas-Valverde 2 Raúl Quincho-Apumayta https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7944-1137 1 , Javier Carrillo Cayllahua 1 , [...] Abraham Ccencho Pari 1 , Vilma Inga Choque 1 , Juan Cárdenas-Valverde 2 PUBLISHED 12 Dec 2025 Author details Author details 1 Universidad Nacional de Huancavelica, Huancavelica, Huancavelica, Peru 2 Universidad Nacional Autonoma Altoandina de Tarma, Tarma, Junin, Peru Raúl Quincho-Apumayta Roles: Funding Acquisition, Project Administration, Supervision, Writing – Original Draft Preparation Javier Carrillo Cayllahua Roles: Data Curation, Formal Analysis, Validation, Writing – Review & Editing Abraham Ccencho Pari Roles: Methodology, Software, Validation, Visualization Vilma Inga Choque Roles: Data Curation, Formal Analysis, Resources, Writing – Review & Editing Juan Cárdenas-Valverde Roles: Investigation, Resources, Software, Supervision, Writing – Original Draft Preparation OPEN PEER REVIEW DETAILS REVIEWER STATUS Abstract Background University dropout among indigenous students is a multifactorial phenomenon that significantly impacts education and equity. This systematic review aimed to consolidate global evidence on risk and protective factors associated with university dropout among indigenous populations. Methods A systematic review was conducted following PRISMA 2020 criteria, encompassing ten databases (Web of Science, Scopus, LILACS, Dialnet, PubMed/MEDLINE, Redalyc, Scielo, DOAJ, Latindex, and CLASE) from October 29, 2024, to November 30, 2024. Out of 23,403 initial records, 21 studies met the inclusion criteria, analyzing indigenous university students and their educational trajectories. Two independent reviewers conducted the study selection and data extraction, ensuring minimized bias. Variables included demographic characteristics, geographic context, academic field, dropout rates, and related factors. Results were synthesized through descriptive analysis, focusing on quantitative data. Results Among the 226,049 participants across 21 studies, only 2,340 (1.03%) were indigenous university students, predominantly from South America (9/21 studies). The average dropout rate was 33.59%, ranging from 20% to 66%, with the highest rates reported among female students in six studies (28.57%). However, three studies highlighted higher dropout rates among male students (14.29%). Economic barriers were the primary risk factor (85.7%), followed by linguistic challenges (47.6%) and geographic limitations (33.3%). Protective factors included financial support (76.2%), academic mentorship (47.6%), and social support (42.8%). Public universities accounted for most participants (17/21 studies), with limited representation from private institutions. Despite significant dropout rates, only seven studies provided detailed prevalence data. Conclusion This review highlights systemic inequities contributing to indigenous university dropout, emphasizing economic, linguistic, and geographic barriers. While financial support and mentorship are effective interventions, their implementation remains inconsistent. Addressing these disparities through targeted policies, culturally inclusive curricula, and equitable resource distribution is essential to reducing dropout rates and fostering academic retention among indigenous students. READ ALL READ LESS Keywords Abandonment, dropout, students, university, indigenous, higher education. Corresponding Author(s) Raúl Quincho-Apumayta ( [email protected] ) Close Corresponding author: Raúl Quincho-Apumayta Competing interests: No competing interests were disclosed. Grant information: Our study is supported by the Universidad Nacional de Huancavelica Peru and FOCAM 03 project. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript. Copyright: © 2025 Quincho-Apumayta R et al . This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. How to cite: Quincho-Apumayta R, Carrillo Cayllahua J, Ccencho Pari A et al. University Dropout Among Indigenous University Students: A Global Systematic Review [version 2; peer review: 1 approved with reservations, 1 not approved] . F1000Research 2025, 14 :641 ( https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.162508.2 ) First published: 02 Jul 2025, 14 :641 ( https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.162508.1 ) Latest published: 12 Dec 2025, 14 :641 ( https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.162508.2 ) Revised Amendments from Version 1 This revised version presents substantial improvements across all sections of the manuscript. The Introduction has been extensively strengthened by incorporating a clearer conceptual definition of university dropout, expanding the background on Indigenous higher-education inequalities, and adding a structured research question based on a PICO-informed framework. The Methods section has been fully revised to align with PRISMA 2020 requirements, including detailed eligibility criteria, an expanded search strategy with additional terms and languages, clearer justification of information sources, and a complete description of the selection, coding, and data-extraction processes. A study risk-of-bias assessment has also been added. In the Results section, a descriptive synthesis of included studies and a PRISMA selection summary have been incorporated, while redundancies between tables and text were reduced. The subsection on risk and protective factors now includes data-driven evidence with concrete examples from primary studies. The Discussion has been enhanced by explicitly stating the contribution of this review to the existing literature. Consequently, language clarity, structure, and coherence were improved throughout the manuscript. This revised version presents substantial improvements across all sections of the manuscript. The Introduction has been extensively strengthened by incorporating a clearer conceptual definition of university dropout, expanding the background on Indigenous higher-education inequalities, and adding a structured research question based on a PICO-informed framework. The Methods section has been fully revised to align with PRISMA 2020 requirements, including detailed eligibility criteria, an expanded search strategy with additional terms and languages, clearer justification of information sources, and a complete description of the selection, coding, and data-extraction processes. A study risk-of-bias assessment has also been added. In the Results section, a descriptive synthesis of included studies and a PRISMA selection summary have been incorporated, while redundancies between tables and text were reduced. The subsection on risk and protective factors now includes data-driven evidence with concrete examples from primary studies. The Discussion has been enhanced by explicitly stating the contribution of this review to the existing literature. Consequently, language clarity, structure, and coherence were improved throughout the manuscript. See the authors' detailed response to the review by Alfredo Guzmán Rincón READ REVIEWER RESPONSES Introduction University dropout (UD) is a multifactorial phenomenon that has significant educational, social, and economic implications for students, higher education institutions, and the state ( Aina et al., 2022 ; Barroso et al., 2022 ). Beyond interrupting academic trajectories, UD limits personal and professional development, constrains opportunities for social mobility, and exacerbates existing social inequalities ( Herbaut, 2021 ; Koopmann et al., 2024 ). According to global analyses from organizations such as UNESCO and the OECD, growing attrition rates threaten national development goals, generate substantial financial losses for families, reduce institutional performance, and undermine public investment in higher education systems. Given its broad consequences, understanding the determinants of UD has become a central priority for improving equity, retention, and educational quality. UD is broadly defined as the permanent or temporary interruption of higher education studies before completing a degree program. It may occur during the first year (early dropout), in intermediate semesters, or near graduation, and may be voluntary stemming from personal, economic, or motivational factors or involuntary due to academic dismissals or institutional regulations. This complex, multidimensional nature requires conceptual clarity when analyzing dropout in populations with distinct sociocultural characteristics, such as Indigenous university students, who experience unique structural and contextual barriers. Previous research has explored the causes, determinants, and consequences of UD in general student populations. Systematic reviews and meta-analyses ( Aina et al., 2022 ; Alban & Mauricio, 2019 ; Munizaga Mellado et al., 2018 ; Véliz Palomino & Ortega, 2023 ) consistently identify socioeconomic disadvantages, insufficient academic preparation, institutional factors, demographic conditions, and motivational constructs as key predictors of dropout. Although these contributions have advanced the understanding of UD, they predominantly address the experiences of non-Indigenous populations and rarely incorporate culturally specific variables such as linguistic diversity, geographic marginalization, or cultural identity. Furthermore, while several studies analyze educational inequalities affecting Indigenous students ( Kirby et al., 2020 ; Loureiro et al., 2024 ; Rodríguez & Ossola, 2021 ), no previous systematic review has consolidated global evidence specifically on university dropout among Indigenous populations. Existing analyses focus mainly on regional case studies or on general equity groups without disaggregating Indigenous student trajectories. As a result, the international literature lacks an integrative synthesis of Indigenous dropout patterns, risk and protective factors, and cross-regional differences. This gap underscores the need for a global systematic review that examines UD through an intercultural and intersectional lens. Indigenous university students face distinctive and intersecting challenges that increase their vulnerability to dropout. Economic barriers, including poverty, unstable employment, and limited access to state support programs, remain among the strongest determinants of UD ( Bustelo et al., 2023 ; Mardon & Ahmed, 2023 ). Linguistic barriers persist when students must transition from Indigenous languages to Spanish, English, or Portuguese as the dominant academic languages ( Meneses Pardo, 2011 ; Rodríguez & Ossola, 2021 ). Cultural discontinuity between Indigenous worldviews and university environments, experiences of discrimination, and epistemic exclusion contribute to feelings of isolation and academic disengagement ( Walton et al., 2020 ; Cruz Pérez et al., 2018 ). Likewise, geographic constraints particularly among students from rural or remote territories create additional financial, logistical, and technological barriers ( Nelson et al., 2018 ). Together, these factors shape the educational trajectories of Indigenous students and amplify their risk of dropout. These challenges have consequences not only for students but also for families, communities, and states. For Indigenous students, UD can reduce long-term income prospects, limit participation in skilled labor markets, and reinforce historical marginalization. Families may experience financial burdens and diminished expectations for intergenerational mobility. Higher education institutions face difficulties in fulfilling equity mandates, while states lose human capital and undermine national commitments to inclusion, social justice, and Indigenous rights. Therefore, addressing Indigenous UD is not merely an academic concern but a structural issue with implications for broader social and educational policy. Although numerous studies describe isolated determinants of Indigenous dropout, the existing evidence remains fragmented across countries, disciplines, and institutional contexts. There is no comprehensive synthesis that integrates demographic, linguistic, cultural, geographic, and academic factors within a global perspective. To address this gap, a systematic review using multiple databases is essential to identify patterns, compare findings, and highlight effective protective strategies that promote retention. Thus, the purpose of this study was to consolidate the available global evidence on university dropout among Indigenous university students, identifying both risk and protective factors and analyzing the characteristics of the studies conducted to date. Following a modified PICO framework appropriate for nonclinical educational research, the guiding research question was: “What risk and protective factors associated with university dropout have been reported among Indigenous university students worldwide, and how do these factors vary across different cultural, geographic, and institutional contexts?” This systematic review contributes to the literature by providing the first global synthesis of Indigenous university dropout, integrating methodological, contextual, and intercultural dimensions, and offering evidence-based implications for policy, institutional practice, and future research. Methods Eligibility criteria Eligible studies included empirical research articles (qualitative, quantitative, or mixed-methods designs) that examined university or tertiary-level dropout among Indigenous students. We included studies with participants enrolled in undergraduate or postgraduate programs, regardless of age or field of study. Studies were required to analyze dropout, attrition, withdrawal, or desertion as an outcome or central phenomenon. We excluded clinical, psychological, or health-treatment studies where the term ‘dropout’ referred to discontinuation of therapy or medical treatment. Only full-text peer-reviewed articles written in English, Spanish, or Portuguese were eligible. Information sources The selection of databases was based on their disciplinary coverage and relevance to education, social sciences, and Indigenous studies. Web of Science and Scopus were included for their extensive indexing of international peer-reviewed journals. PubMed/MEDLINE was added to capture studies from health sciences that examine educational trajectories of Indigenous students. LILACS, Scielo, Dialnet, and Redalyc were selected to ensure inclusion of Latin American research, where a substantial proportion of Indigenous populations live. DOAJ was included to access open-access publications. Following the reviewer’s recommendation, Latindex was reconsidered due to its inclusion of non–peer-reviewed sources; its results were screened with stricter criteria. Search strategy The search strategy combined controlled vocabulary and free-text terms related to higher education, dropout, and Indigenous populations ( Page et al., 2021 ). The final search string applied (adapted to each database) was: ( “higher education” OR university OR college OR “tertiary education” OR bachelor OR degree OR undergraduate ) AND ( drop*out OR “dropping out” OR desertion OR attrition OR withdrawal ) AND ( Indigenous OR “Aboriginal Peoples” OR “First Nations” OR “Native Peoples” OR indígena OR povos indígenas OR aborígenes *). Portuguese equivalents were included to avoid excluding Brazilian literature. Filters were applied to exclude clinical studies where ‘dropout’ referred to treatment non-completion. Additionally, exclusion filters by study type (full articles or letters to the editor) were applied in databases that allowed it (Scopus, WOS, LILACS, Dialnet, PubMed, and Scielo). A total of 23,403 records were identified: 21,619 in WOS, 356 in Scopus, 115 in LILACS, 743 in Dialnet, 385 in PubMed/MEDLINE, 16 in Redalyc, 53 in Scielo, and 116 in DOAJ. The searches yielded no results in the Latindex and CLASE platforms. Selection process To ensure the relevance of the studies included, predefined inclusion and exclusion criteria were established. Studies addressing university dropout or attrition in university students (undergraduate or postgraduate) belonging to Indigenous communities were included. No restrictions were placed on age range, sex, or geographic location, and studies in Spanish or English, published as full and accessible articles, analyzing risk or protective factors related to dropout, were considered. Additionally, studies providing information on dimensions or determinants of school attrition in this population group were included. In contrast, theoretical studies, such as systematic reviews, meta-analyses, and literature reviews, were excluded, as well as research focused on non-university school populations or vulnerable populations other than Indigenous communities. Two independent reviewers screened all titles, abstracts, and full texts. Disagreements were resolved through consensus or consultation with a third reviewer (the principal investigator). Reasons for exclusion at the full-text stage included: (a) absence of an Indigenous population, (b) absence of university or tertiary-level students, (c) the study did not address dropout or attrition, (d) theoretical or review articles, and (e) clinical studies using ‘dropout’ for treatment discontinuation. Data collection process The study selection process was carried out in three stages following the PRISMA guidelines ( Raúl, 2025 ). PRISMA flow diagram has been presented as extended data as well ( Raúl, 2025 ; See extended data as figure 1). First, an initial review of the titles, abstracts, and keywords of the 23,391 unique records identified after removing duplicates within each database was conducted. During this stage, 23,271 studies were excluded for not meeting the eligibility criteria, including 408 articles that did not address a university population, 21,873 that did not include an Indigenous population, 736 that did not focus on the phenomenon of dropout or attrition, and 306 studies of a theoretical or bibliometric nature. In the second stage, 120 articles were selected for full-text review. During this phase, 11 duplicate records across all databases were identified and removed, as they had not been detected in the first stage. Additionally, 86 studies were excluded for not meeting the inclusion criteria after a detailed full-text review ( Raúl, 2025 ; See the extended data as Table 1 ). Finally, 23 studies met all the established criteria and were included for analysis and narrative synthesis. The following data items were extracted from each study: author, year, country, study design, data source, participant characteristics (sample size, age, sex, Indigenous group, place of residence, academic level), institutional type, dropout prevalence (if applicable), definitions of dropout, methodological tools, and all reported risk and protective factors. Table 1. Characteristics of the studies and demographic information of participants. Author(s) Year Country N NI TI EP-R years Sex Rodríguez & Ossola (61) 2021 Argentina 5 2 PB NA M: 0; F: 2 Schmidt et al. (65) 2023 Chile 2,222 512 PB NA M: 276; F: 236 Saldarriaga et al. (63) 2019 Colombia 748 NA PB NA NA Riveros et al. (59) 2024 Mexico 10 10 PB ME: 22,5; R: 20-25 M: 0; F: 10 Loureiro et al. (44) 2024 Brazil 226.049 2361 PB NA NA Kozlova et al. (38) 2022 Russia 268 66 PB NA M: 57; F: 9 Salazar Cóndor (62) 2022 Peru 39,180 1,904 PB ME: 19; R: 16-22 NA Benítez & Ramírez (7) 2023 Mexico 14 14 PB NA NA Schmidt & Alvites (60) 2023 Mexico 56 4 PB ME: 20,5; R: 18-23 NA De Gracia & Vega (20) 2022 Panama 50 NA PB NA NA Meneses (49) 2010 Colombia 53 53 PB ME: 21,5; R:18-25 M: 21; F: 32 Hearn et al. (30) 2019 Australia 69 69 PB NA M: 30; F: 39 Oliver et al. (55) 2015 Australia 57 57 PB ME: 27.6; R: 17-60 M: 13; F: 44 Walton (74) 2020 Canada 527 527 PB NA NA Lydster & Murray (45) 2019 Australia 18 18 PV NA NA Bergamaschi et al. (8) 2016 Canada 85 85 PB ME: 20,5; R: 16-25 M: 34; F: 51 Calegare & Sales (13) 2023 Brazil 7 7 PB ME: 41,14; R: 29-59 M: 6; F: 1 Gutiérrez et al. (26) 2015 Ecuador 1076 200 PB ME: 24; R: 17-31 NA Kirby et al. (6) 2020 Peru 52,000 NA PB y PV NA NA Li & Carroll (42) 2019 Australia 193,464 2,152 PB y PV ME: NA; R: NA M: 1.463; F: 689 Li & Jackson (43) 2024 Australia 81,874 557 PB y PV ME: 21; R:17-25 NA Data extraction A standardized data extraction matrix was developed and piloted by both reviewers. Extracted variables included study characteristics, sample features, Indigenous group, methodological approach, dropout definition, and identified risk and protective factors. Variables were coded using an inductive–deductive procedure: initial codes were derived from previous dropout frameworks, and additional categories were added based on recurring themes identified during extraction. This coding process informed the synthesis presented in the Results section. Analysis For the description of the results, the general characteristics of the included studies were analyzed and described, reviewing aspects such as the country, sample size, proportion of Indigenous students, geographic context (rural, urban, or mixed), and type of institution (public, private, or mixed). To ensure the comparability of the data, absolute frequencies and percentages were calculated. Regarding the age of the participants, some studies only reported age ranges; therefore, it was necessary to calculate the estimated mean age using the lower and upper limits as references. Due to the heterogeneity of the studies, quantitative results were synthesized through descriptive analyses. Non-homogeneous or missing data were presented through a narrative synthesis, complemented by tables that facilitate the comparison between studies. Synthesis methods Due to methodological heterogeneity across studies differences in design, measures, populations, and outcome definitions a meta-analysis was not feasible. Instead, we conducted a descriptive synthesis for quantitative data, calculating frequencies, percentages, and ranges for comparable variables. Qualitative findings were synthesized through thematic analysis informed by the coding framework described above. Mixed-methods studies contributed both quantitative indicators and thematic categories. Findings from all methodological approaches were integrated narratively to identify convergent risk and protective factors. Study risk-of-bias assessment Risk of bias was assessed independently by two reviewers using the tool recommended by Alban and Mauricio (2019) , which evaluates methodological quality in non-randomized and observational studies. The tool examines sampling adequacy, clarity of research aims, data collection rigor, transparency of analysis, and appropriateness of conclusions. Disagreements were resolved by consensus. Results A total of 23,403 records were identified across all databases. After removing duplicates, 23,391 unique records were screened by title and abstract, of which 23,271 were excluded for not meeting the eligibility criteria. Full-text review was conducted for 120 studies, and 99 were excluded for reasons including absence of an Indigenous population, lack of focus on university dropout, nonempirical design, or misclassification of dropout as treatment discontinuation. Ultimately, 21 studies met all criteria and were included in the final synthesis. General characteristics of the included studies Studies were predominantly conducted in Latin America and Oceania, with most sampling university students from public institutions. Sample sizes and demographic reporting varied considerably ( Table 1 ). Of the total records, 2 studies did not provide disaggregated information on Indigenous university populations ( De Gracia Vega & Vega de Martínez, 2024 ; Kirby et al., 2020 ; Saldarriaga Isaza et al., 2019 ). The average age of the participants was 24.19 years, considering only the 9 records that reported this information. In some cases, the age range was adjusted to calculate these values ( Bergamaschi et al., 2016 ; Calegare & Sales, 2023 ; Gutiérrez et al., 2015 ; Li & Jackson, 2024 ; Meneses Pardo, 2011 ; Oliver et al., 2015 ; Rafael Riveros et al., 2024 ; Rodríguez Gallegos & Alvites-Huamaní, 2023 ; Salazar Cóndor, 2022 ). The 21 included studies employed diverse methodologies, including qualitative (7), quantitative (6), and mixed-methods designs (8). Sample sizes ranged widely, from small ethnographic samples to national administrative datasets. Most studies were conducted in South America and Oceania, with Indigenous populations such as Quechua, Aymara, Amazonian groups, Aboriginal Australians, and First Nations represented. Seventeen studies focused on public universities, three examined mixed institutional contexts, and one examined private institutions. Almost all studies analyzed undergraduate students, with only one examining postgraduate education. In these studies, 63.06% of the participants were men, and 36.95% were women. However, 11 out of 21 studies did not report the sex of the participants ( Benitez & Ramírez, 2023 ; De Gracia Vega & Vega de Martínez, 2024 ; Gutiérrez et al., 2015 ; Kirby et al., 2020 ; Li & Jackson, 2024 ; Loureiro et al., 2024 ; Lydster & Murray, 2019 ; Rodríguez Gallegos & Alvites-Huamaní, 2023 ; Salazar Cóndor, 2022 ; Saldarriaga Isaza et al., 2019 ; Walton et al., 2020 ), and only 2 records focused exclusively on Indigenous women ( Rafael Riveros et al., 2024 ; Rodríguez & Ossola, 2021 ). Regarding the type of higher education institution, the majority of studies (17/21) were conducted on students from public universities ( Benitez & Ramírez, 2023 ; Bergamaschi et al., 2016 ; Calegare & Sales, 2023 ; De Gracia Vega & Vega de Martínez, 2024 ; Gutiérrez et al., 2015 ; Hearn et al., 2019 ; Kozlova et al., 2022 ; Loureiro et al., 2024 ; Meneses Pardo, 2011 ; Oliver et al., 2015 ; Rafael Riveros et al., 2024 ; Rodríguez Gallegos & Alvites-Huamaní, 2023 ; Rodríguez & Ossola, 2021 ; Salazar Cóndor, 2022 ; Saldarriaga Isaza et al., 2019 ; Schmidt Araneda et al., 2023 ; Walton et al., 2020 ), while only one study focused on students from private universities ( Lydster & Murray, 2019 ). Additionally, three records analyzed populations from both public and private universities ( Kirby et al., 2020 ; Li & Carroll, 2020 ; Li & Jackson, 2024 ). The studies represented a wide diversity of Indigenous groups across Latin America, North America, Oceania, and Russia, reflecting substantial cultural and linguistic heterogeneity among participants. Most students lived in rural areas and many were bilingual in an Indigenous language and a national language ( Table 2 ). Of the total studies, 4 were conducted in Indigenous communities in Central America (Mexico: Tseltal, Wixarika, Nahua, Mazahua, Purépecha, Otomí; Panama: Ngäbe and Buglé); 2 out of 21 records in North America (Canada: Métis, Inuit, and First Nations); 6 in South America (Colombia: Indigenous peoples of the Amazon; Argentina: Wilchi and Kolla; Chile: Mapuche; Peru: Quechua and Aimara; Brazil: Tuyuca, Tukano, Bará, Munduruku, Yahua, Sateré-Mawé, Tariana, Kaingang, Guaraní, Fulniô, and Juruna; Ecuador: Achuar, Andwa, Kichwa, Sapara, Shiwiar, Shuar, and Waorani); 4 in Oceania (Australian Aboriginals and Torres Strait Islanders); and 1 in Europe (Russia: Komi-Permyak). Although 4 studies did not report this information ( Kirby et al., 2020 ; Li & Jackson, 2024 ; Loureiro et al., 2024 ; Meneses Pardo, 2011 ). Regarding place of residence, in 15 out of 21 studies, participants reported living in rural areas ( Benitez & Ramírez, 2023 ; Bergamaschi et al., 2016 ; Calegare & Sales, 2023 ; De Gracia Vega & Vega de Martínez, 2024 ; Gutiérrez et al., 2015 ; Kirby et al., 2020 ; Li & Carroll, 2020 ; Li & Jackson, 2024 ; Lydster & Murray, 2019 ; Meneses Pardo, 2011 ; Oliver et al., 2015 ; Rafael Riveros et al., 2024 ; Rodríguez & Ossola, 2021 ; Saldarriaga Isaza et al., 2019 ; Schmidt Araneda et al., 2023 ), while 5 out of 21 lived in both rural and urban areas ( Hearn et al., 2019 ; Kozlova et al., 2022 ; Loureiro et al., 2024 ; Salazar Cóndor, 2022 ; Walton et al., 2020 ). One study did not specify the area of residence ( Rodríguez Gallegos & Alvites-Huamaní, 2023 ). Table 2. Cultural characteristics of participants. Author Year Cultural ID Place of residence Languages spoken Rodríguez & Ossola (61) 2021 WI y KO RL WI; KO; Es Schmidt et al. (65) 2023 MA RL MA y Es Saldarriaga et al. (63) 2019 IA RL IA y Es Riveros et al. (59) 2024 CH y TS RL CH y TS Loureiro et al. (44) 2024 NA RL y UR NA Kozlova et al. (38) 2022 Ko RL y UR Ko Salazar Cóndor (62) 2022 Que; AI; A RL y UR Que; AI; A y Es Benítez & Ramírez (7) 2023 NA; MAZ; PU; OT RL NA; MAZ; PU; OT y Es Schmidt & Alvites (60) 2023 WIX NA HU De Gracia & Vega (20) 2022 NG y BU RL NA Meneses (49) 2010 NA RL NA Hearn et al. (30) 2019 AB RL y UR NA Oliver et al. (55) 2015 AB RL NA Walton (74) 2020 ME; I; FN RL y UR NA Lydster & Murray (45) 2019 AB RL NA Bergamaschi et al. (8) 2016 KA; GU; Que; FU; JU RL KA; GU; Que; FU; JU Calegare & Sales (13) 2023 TU; TUK; BA; MU; YA; S-M; T RL TU; TUK; BA; MU; YA; S-M; T; Por Gutiérrez et al. (26) 2015 AC; AN; KI; SA; SH; SHU; WA RL AC; AN; KI; SA; SH; SHU; WA Kirby et al. (16) 2020 NA RL NA Li & Carroll (42) 2019 AB RL NA Li & Jackson (43) 2024 NA RL NA Finally, the studies reported a great linguistic diversity. Identified languages included Andean languages (Quechua, Aimara), Amazonian languages (Achuar, Andwa, Sapara, Shiwiar, Shuar, Waorani, Yahua, Tuyuca, Tukano, Bará, Munduruku, Sateré-Mawé, Tariana, Fulniô, Juruna), Southern Cone languages (Mapuche, Wilchi, Kolla, Guaraní, Kaingang), Mesoamerican languages (Tseltal, Ch’ol, Nahuas, Mazahuas, Purépechas, Otomíes, Wixarika, Huichol), North American languages (Métis, Inuit, First Nations), European languages (Komi-Permyak), and dominant languages (Portuguese) ( Benitez & Ramírez, 2023 ; Bergamaschi et al., 2016 ; Calegare & Sales, 2023 ; Gutiérrez et al., 2015 ; Kozlova et al., 2022 ; Rafael Riveros et al., 2024 ; Rodríguez Gallegos & Alvites-Huamaní, 2023 ; Rodríguez & Ossola, 2021 ; Salazar Cóndor, 2022 ; Saldarriaga Isaza et al., 2019 ; Schmidt Araneda et al., 2023 ). In 5 studies, the participants were bilingual ( Benitez & Ramírez, 2023 ; Rodríguez & Ossola, 2021 ; Salazar Cóndor, 2022 ; Saldarriaga Isaza et al., 2019 ; Schmidt Araneda et al., 2023 ); while in 10 records, this information was not reported ( De Gracia Vega & Vega de Martínez, 2024 ; Hearn et al., 2019 ; Kirby et al., 2020 ; Li & Carroll, 2020 ; Li & Jackson, 2024 ; Loureiro et al., 2024 ; Lydster & Murray, 2019 ; Meneses Pardo, 2011 ; Oliver et al., 2015 ; Walton et al., 2020 ). Methodologies varied widely across studies, with a balanced mix of qualitative, quantitative, and mixed-method designs. Data sources ranged from interviews and surveys to institutional records, and most studies addressed multiple academic disciplines ( Benitez & Ramírez, 2023 ; Bergamaschi et al., 2016 ; De Gracia Vega & Vega de Martínez, 2024 ; Gutiérrez et al., 2015 ; Hearn et al., 2019 ; Kozlova et al., 2022 ; Li & Carroll, 2020 ; Li & Jackson, 2024 ; Loureiro et al., 2024 ; Meneses Pardo, 2011 ; Oliver et al., 2015 ; Rafael Riveros et al., 2024 ; Rodríguez Gallegos & Alvites-Huamaní, 2023 ; Rodríguez & Ossola, 2021 ; Salazar Cóndor, 2022 ; Saldarriaga Isaza et al., 2019 ; Schmidt Araneda et al., 2023 ). Table 3. Methodological aspects of the selected studies. Author(s) Year Level Field ST* Source T-TU Rodríguez & Ossola (61) 2021 UG EDU QUAL; EXP PRI O & SS-INT Schmidt et al. (65) 2023 UG ENG; HEA; SOC; EDU; AGR; ADM QUAN; DES SEC IR Saldarriaga et al. (63) 2019 UG ENG; SOC; AGR; ECO; HEA QUAN; ANA SEC IR PEAMA* Riveros et al. (59) 2024 UG TOU QUAN-INT PRI IDI & O Loureiro et al. (44) 2024 UG SOC; ENG MIXED Mixed Q & IR Kozlova et al. (38) 2022 UG LAN MIXED PRI SS-INT; STAI*; BB Salazar Cóndor (62) 2022 UG EDU; SOC; ART QUAL; ANA SEC IR Benítez & Ramírez (7) 2023 UG HEA QUAL; DES PRI SS-INT; PPA Schmidt & Alvites (60) 2023 UG ADM QUAN; DES PRI Q De Gracia & Vega (20) 2022 UG LAN MIXED PRI Q & SS-INT Meneses (49) 2010 UG ENG; HEA MIXED Mixed IR; QC Hearn et al. (30) 2019 UG HEA; ART; ENG MIXED PRI I; SS-INT Oliver et al. (55) 2015 UG SOC; EDU; HEA QUAL; EXP PRI QC; TA Walton (74) 2020 UG NA MIXED Mixed SS-INT; QC; IR Lydster & Murray (45) 2019 UG NA QUAL-PRA PRI SS; QC Bergamaschi et al. (8) 2016 UG HEA; EDU; AGR; ENG; SOC MIXED; DES Mixed IR; SS-INT; PO Calegare & Sales (13) 2023 PG ANT; CUL QUAL; EXP PRI Q; SS-INT Gutiérrez et al. (26) 2015 UG TOU; ENV; FOO QUAL; EXP PRI Q; BFNE*; DR; FG Kirby et al. (16) 2020 UG NA MIXED; ANA Mixed SS-INT; TA; DR; IR Li & Carroll (42) 2019 UG ENG; HEA; CUL; ECO; SOC; ART QUAN; ANA SEC NS-SUS*, IR Li & Jackson (43) 2024 UG ENG; IT; ARC; ENV; CUL; SOC; ART QUAN; ANA SEC IR; NS-SUS* The identified areas include Education Sciences, Exact Sciences and Engineering, Health, Social Sciences, Humanities, Agricultural Sciences, Administrative Sciences, Economics, Tourism, Arts, Environmental Studies, and Cultural and Educational Development. However, fields such as Architecture, Technology, and Information Sciences had lower representation. The only study that analyzed dropout at the graduate level ( Calegare & Sales, 2023 ) focused exclusively on Education and Anthropology programs. However, three records did not report the participants’ professional fields ( Kirby et al., 2020 ; Lydster & Murray, 2019 ; Walton et al., 2020 ). Regarding the methodologies used, 7 out of 21 studies employed qualitative approaches using semi-structured interviews and observations to explore individual and community experiences associated with dropout ( Benitez & Ramírez, 2023 ; Calegare and Sales, 2023 ; Gutiérrez et al., 2015 ; Lydster & Murray, 2019 ; Oliver et al., 2015 ; Rafael Riveros et al., 2024 ; Rodríguez & Ossola, 2021 ). Meanwhile, 6 out of 21 studies applied quantitative methodologies incorporating statistical analyses of institutional databases and surveys ( Li & Carroll, 2020 ; Li & Jackson, 2024 ; Rafael Riveros et al., 2024 ; Rodríguez Gallegos & Alvites-Huamaní, 2023 ; Saldarriaga Isaza et al., 2019 ; Schmidt Araneda et al., 2023 ). The risk-of-bias assessment indicated moderate methodological quality across studies. Most articles clearly stated research objectives and provided adequate methodological detail. However, common limitations included insufficient reporting of sampling procedures, lack of standardized definitions of dropout, incomplete reporting of sex or age variables, and limited transparency in analytic strategies. These issues should be considered when interpreting the results. Finally, 8 studies used mixed methodologies, combining interviews with structured data analysis ( Bergamaschi et al., 2016 ; De Gracia Vega & Vega de Martínez, 2024 ; Hearn et al., 2019 ; Kirby et al., 2020 ; Kozlova et al., 2022 ; Loureiro et al., 2024 ; Meneses Pardo, 2011 ; Walton et al., 2020 ). Finally, the risk and protective factors associated with Indigenous university dropout were analyzed (see Table 4 ). First, the prevalence of Indigenous university dropout was estimated at 33.59%, based on data from seven studies that provided this information ( Bergamaschi et al., 2016 ; Loureiro et al., 2024 ; Meneses Pardo, 2011 ; Rafael Riveros et al., 2024 ; Salazar Cóndor, 2022 ; Saldarriaga Isaza et al., 2019 ; Schmidt Araneda et al., 2023 ). From these studies, an average Indigenous University Dropout (IUD) rate of 33.59% was estimated. However, 66.67% of the studies did not report this data, limiting the ability to conduct a more comprehensive analysis of dropout rates. The university dropout rate ranged between 20% and 66%, except for a single record that reported a lower rate ( Loureiro et al., 2024 ). Similarly, the demographic variable analysis reported that IUD was higher among women (28.57%), considering data from six studies ( Bergamaschi et al., 2016 ; Hearn et al., 2019 ; Meneses Pardo, 2011 ; Rafael Riveros et al., 2024 ; Rodríguez Gallegos & Alvites-Huamaní, 2023 ; Walton et al., 2020 ); However, in three studies ( Loureiro et al., 2024 ; Salazar Cóndor, 2022 ; Saldarriaga Isaza et al., 2019 ) higher dropout rates were reported among men (14.29%). In this regard, it is important to highlight that 52.38% of the studies did not report sex as a variable associated with dropout ( Benitez & Ramírez, 2023 ; Calegare & Sales, 2023 ; De Gracia Vega & Vega de Martínez, 2024 ; Gutiérrez et al., 2015 ; Kirby et al., 2020 ; Kozlova et al., 2022 ; Li & Carroll, 2020 ; Li & Jackson, 2024 ; Lydster & Murray, 2019 ; Oliver et al., 2015 ; Rodríguez & Ossola, 2021 ; Schmidt Araneda et al., 2023 ). Table 4. Risk and protective factors. Author Year % D DG Risk factors Protective factors EC DS LB LSS AC GL FS MAG SS IE AF CR Rodríguez & Ossola (61) 2021 NA NA * * * - * - - * * - - * Schmidt et al. (65) 2023 1Y: 20%; 9Y: 26% NA * * - * * - * * - - - - Saldarriaga et al. (63) 2019 24% M * - - - * - * * * * * - Riveros et al. (59) 2024 41% F * * * * - * - - * * * * Loureiro et al. (44) 2024 1% M * * - - - * * * * - - - Kozlova et al. (38) 2022 NA NA - - - * - * * * * - - * Salazar Cóndor (62) 2022 31.24% M - - * * - * * * * * - - Benítez & Ramírez (7) 2023 NA NA * * - - * - - * * * - * Schmidt & Alvites (60) 2023 NA F * - - - * * - * * - * - De Gracia & Vega (20) 2022 NA NA * - - * - - * * - - - - Meneses (49) 2010 66% F * - - * * - * * * - - * Hearn et al. (30) 2019 NA F * * - - * - * * * - - - Oliver et al. (55) 2015 NA NA * * - * - - * - * - - - Walton (74) 2020 NA F * * - - * - * * * * - - Lydster & Murray (45) 2019 NA NA - - - * * - - * * - - - Bergamaschi et al. (8) 2016 25.9% F * - * * * * * * * * - * Calegare & Sales (13) 2023 NA NA * * - * - * * - * - - - Gutiérrez et al. (26) 2015 NA NA * - * - * - - * * - * - Kirby et al. (16) 2020 NA NA * * * - * - * * * - * - Li & Carroll (42) 2019 NA M * - - * * * * * * - - - Li & Jackson (43) 2024 NA NA * - - * * - * * * - - - Regarding the risk and protective factors identified in the included studies, economic factors were observed as the main obstacle to university retention, reported in 85.7% (18/21) of the records. Other significant factors include linguistic barriers, present in 47.6% of the studies (10/21), and geographical location, mentioned 33.3% of the time (7/21). On the other hand, another identified risk factor was the lack of social support, reported in only 23.8% of the records (5/21). On the other hand, among the protective factors, financial support was the most frequent, identified in 76.2% of the studies (16/21), followed by mentoring or academic guidance, reported in 47.6% (10/21), as well as social support, mentioned in 42.8% (9/21). The least frequent factors were cultural reaffirmation and an inclusive environment, both reported in 28.6% of the studies (6/21). Discussion This systematic review analyzed 21 studies that examined university dropout among Indigenous students. Most records were concentrated in South America (9/21), followed by Oceania (5/21) and Central America (4/21). South America reported the highest number of studies, reflecting an uneven geographical focus in research on Indigenous populations. Although Latin America has received greater attention due to its historical and demographic relevance ( Barragán Moreno & González Támara, 2024 ; Gutierrez-Pachas et al., 2023 ), compared to other regions such as Africa and Asia, which show a notable absence of research, limiting the global understanding of the phenomenon ( Kukulska-Hulme et al., 2023 ; Venkatesan et al., 2024 ). These trends in the geographical distribution of studies are related to the demographic characteristics of the participants included in them. Of the 226,049 participants analyzed in the studies, only 1.03% were Indigenous students. This figure highlights a significant gap in the representation of these populations in the analyzed studies, indicating a substantial disproportion in the number of studies addressing the issues of Indigenous communities compared to other groups ( Alban & Mauricio, 2019 ; Arias et al., 2024 ; Munizaga Mellado et al., 2018 ; Quincho Apumayta et al., 2024 ; Véliz Palomino & Ortega, 2023 ). The average age of the participants was 24.19 years. This finding is consistent with another study that reported a similar age range among university students ( Hearn et al., 2019 ), particularly in regions where higher education is attained later due to socioeconomic contexts and structural barriers ( Li & Jackson, 2024 ; Webb, 2019 ). However, this average may not accurately reflect the reality of Indigenous students, who often enter university at older ages due to sociocultural or economic barriers ( Dadi et al., 2024 ; Halabieh et al., 2022 ; Lecy & Osteen, 2022 ). This suggests a potential bias in the data and highlights the need for more inclusive studies that consider the diversity of educational trajectories within these populations. Regarding gender, 63.06% of the participants reported in the studies were men, indicating a higher male representation in research on university dropout. This finding aligns with previous studies showing greater male participation in higher education, particularly in Indigenous communities where traditional roles assign men greater economic and labor responsibilities from an early age ( Martinez, 2014 ; Toyon, 2024 ). These high rates of male participation in studies on university dropout may be linked to social and economic pressures that push men, particularly in Indigenous communities, to enter the labor market at an early age, affecting their educational continuity ( Nguyen et al., 2020 ; Wilson, 2021 ). Additionally, factors such as low academic performance, lack of motivation, and limited use of institutional support networks make them more prone to dropping out ( Aina et al., 2022 ; Legault et al., 2006 ). On the other hand, the lower representation of women could be attributed to several factors. First, the cultural structure governing women’s roles in Indigenous communities ( Hill et al., 2024 ; Ingram et al., 2021 ). Second, structural barriers that limit their access to and retention in higher education. However, the literature suggests that despite facing greater family and domestic responsibilities that hinder their academic continuity ( Blackburn, 2023 ; Chanana, 1993 ), women often develop resilience strategies that enable them to overcome these difficulties, which could explain their lower proportion in studies on dropout ( Cotton et al., 2017 ). These gender inequalities in access to and retention in education are exacerbated in contexts where public education predominates, identified as the most common in 17 of the 21 analyzed studies. Deficiencies in these systems, such as inadequate infrastructure, limited financial support, and cultural disconnection, appear to contribute to high university dropout rates ( Goksen & Cemalcilar, 2010 ; Halabieh et al., 2022 ; Valencia Quecano et al., 2024 ). Since public institutions typically serve a higher percentage of vulnerable students, including Indigenous populations ( Jorgensen, 2020 ), these shortcomings create additional barriers that hinder their retention and perpetuate structural inequalities by restricting their educational opportunities ( Silva-Martínez et al., 2023 ). Culturally, the most represented Indigenous communities belong to South America, including the Quechua, Aymara, and Amazonian communities such as the Shuar and Yahua. Colombia, Chile, Peru, Brazil, and Ecuador had the highest number of records involving Indigenous populations. Regarding languages, Quechua and Aymara were the most spoken, while other regional languages, such as Tseltal and Guaraní, were also present. The most common fields of study among participants were Social Sciences, Education, Health, and Engineering. The representation of Indigenous communities in the studies reflects the predominant cultural diversity in South America, where these groups face specific challenges in higher education ( Cortina & Earl, 2021 ; Smith, 2024 ; Van Cott, 2005 ). Some studies indicated that Indigenous participants were bilingual or had to learn new languages to integrate into educational systems ( Benitez & Ramírez, 2023 ; Rodríguez & Ossola, 2021 ; Salazar Cóndor, 2022 ; Saldarriaga Isaza et al., 2019 ; Schmidt Araneda et al., 2023 ). Evidence suggests that language and cultural identity play a crucial role in educational access and retention and that the absence of Indigenous language programs significantly limits inclusion ( Álvarez Díaz & Storey Meza, 2021 ; Eduardo & Gabriel, 2021 ; Salmi & D’Addio, 2021 ). On the other hand, the concentration of Indigenous students in fields such as Social Sciences, Education, and Health may be associated with formative traditions that prioritize disciplines linked to community cohesion and social development ( Fonchingong Che, 2024 ; Gittelsohn et al., 2020 ; Mosquera-Guerrero et al., 2023 ). On the other hand, the findings revealed a predominance of Indigenous students from rural areas in 15 studies ( Benitez & Ramírez, 2023 ; Bergamaschi et al., 2016 ; Calegare & Sales, 2023 ; De Gracia Vega & Vega de Martínez, 2024 ; Gutiérrez et al., 2015 ; Kirby et al., 2020 ; Li & Carroll, 2020 ; Li & Jackson, 2024 ; Lydster & Murray, 2019 ; Meneses Pardo, 2011 ; Oliver et al., 2015 ; Rafael Riveros et al., 2024 ; Rodríguez & Ossola, 2021 ; Saldarriaga Isaza et al., 2019 ; Schmidt Araneda et al., 2023 ); In contrast, only five studies included mixed populations (rural and urban) ( Hearn et al., 2019 ; Kozlova et al., 2022 ; Loureiro et al., 2024 ; Salazar Cóndor, 2022 ; Walton et al., 2020 ). This trend aligns with the literature, where rural communities are more frequently studied due to their greater exposure to structural barriers such as the lack of educational infrastructure, economic difficulties, and limited technological connectivity ( Yu et al., 2024 ). In this regard, university dropout in rural contexts is primarily linked to economic and family factors, where the need to contribute to productive work often takes precedence over academic continuity ( Callejo-González & Ruiz-Herrero, 2024 ; Guzman Rincón et al., 2023 ). These factors are further exacerbated by the lack of educational infrastructure, the need for long commutes to institutions, and technological limitations, which restrict equitable access to higher education ( Mustafa et al., 2024 ; Timmis & Muhuro, 2019 ). Of the analyzed records, 20 focused on undergraduate education, while only one addressed dropout at the graduate level. This disparity may be due to the limited research on advanced levels, given that economic and academic barriers are more pronounced in the early stages of university education. At the undergraduate level, Indigenous students face higher dropout risks due to economic, sociocultural, and contextual factors ( García-Vita et al., 2021 ; McKinley Jones Brayboy et al., 2015 ). In contrast, the limited representation of Indigenous graduate students reflects the structural and economic barriers they face from earlier educational levels. Factors such as high costs, lack of financial support, and the absence of inclusive policies affect their access. From a methodological perspective, the studies reflected a diverse approach, with seven based on qualitative methods, six on quantitative methods, and eight using mixed methodologies. These methodological choices respond to different analytical needs in understanding university dropout ( Pilcher & Cortazzi, 2024 ). Qualitative methods allowed for the exploration of cultural and social barriers from individual perspectives, while quantitative methods identified patterns and trends through statistical analysis of large populations ( Cadena Iñiguez et al., 2017 ; Hussein, 2009 ; Pilcher and Cortazzi, 2024 ). In this context, the studies also identified factors that act as risks for university dropout, with the most frequently reported economic barriers (85.7%), followed by linguistic barriers (47.6%) and geographical limitations (33.3%). These factors reflect structural inequalities and the lack of cultural adaptations in educational systems. Economic barriers stand out as a central impediment, as they limit students’ ability to cover basic costs related to higher education ( Mardon & Ahmed, 2023 ; Perez-Castro, 2024 ). On the other hand, among the identified protective factors, financial support was the most frequent (76.2%), followed by mentoring or academic guidance (47.6%) and social support (42.8%). These elements have been shown to be effective in reducing university dropout rates, but their implementation is limited and inconsistent, suggesting a need for more comprehensive policies to ensure the availability and accessibility of these resources ( Cairney & Kippin, 2022 ; Salmi & D’Addio, 2021 ). Implications and contribution of this review This review contributes to existing knowledge by consolidating, for the first time, global empirical evidence on university dropout specifically among Indigenous students a population largely overlooked in previous systematic reviews on higher education attrition. Unlike earlier reviews that examined general dropout determinants or focused on non-Indigenous groups, this study synthesizes cross-regional data from 21 studies to identify patterns unique to Indigenous students, such as the intersection of economic precarity, linguistic marginalization, and geographic isolation. The review also advances the field by distinguishing risk and protective factors supported by quantitative and qualitative data, highlighting the structural inequities embedded in higher education systems. This evidence is essential for designing culturally responsive retention policies and provides researchers and policymakers with a more comprehensive understanding of the multi-layered barriers that shape educational trajectories for Indigenous learners. Limitations This study features crucial restrictions which researchers need to view when undertaking assessment of both results and their application range. Methodological differences between the included research studies create major difficulties for analysis. Research methods together with data collection procedures and the list of analytical methods introduce variability which hinders observation of shared results and understanding of established patterns. The wide cultural and economic diversity across geographic areas makes this observation especially crucial for research on Indigenous university dropout. One of the continuous challenges within the studies under analysis involves the insufficient breakdown of data. Many study records failed to include critical variables that identified gender, age and subject majors of participants. The absence of detailed participant data hinders advanced research examinations which restricts scientists from comprehending how various subgroups from the Indigenous population experience dropout variations. Some studies fail to provide information about the student proportion among Indigenous students which indicates limited attention to proper documentation of this population. The territorial distribution of studies in this review appears irregular since different geographic areas show various populations. Most of the research belongs to Latin America and Oceania whereas regions in Asia and Africa lack representation despite their substantial population of Indigenous communities cultural and demographically speaking. The geographical imbalance diminishes the worldwide usefulness of research results and hinders researchers from running multinational studies that could broaden our understanding about this subject. The dearth of investigations regarding graduate-level educational research displays a scholarly trend toward studying primary stages of higher education. Social and economic obstacles that face Indigenous students seem more prevalent in their education level progression. Active research procurement concerning graduate education leads to substantial knowledge gaps identifying the obstacles Indigenous students encounter from beginning to end in their academic journey. Insufficient data about risk plus protective components restricts researchers from achieving a full understanding of what factors lead to university termination or continued academic participation. The collection of non-standardized data hinders accurate identification of optimal approaches to solve these problems despite documenting generic characteristics. Standards for methodological research design and more detailed data acquisition need establishment because these issues affect the current ability to study university dropout or retention in higher education. Conclusion Studies demonstrate that multiple factors contribute to university dropout rates among Indigenous populations because such cases represent continuing institutional biases in educational infrastructure. Social along with linguistic and economic barriers function as the main obstacles which prevent Indigenous students from advancing through higher education especially in rural territories where economic struggles combine with minimal infrastructure and limited technology access to worsen these enrollment barriers. Scholarship programs and educational mentoring with financial backing demonstrate their effectiveness in helping retain students during education. A holistic strategy which acknowledges gender differences as well as educational background and location needs to be created because existing implementation measures are inadequate. The elimination of equity gaps requires sufficient financial aid while adding cultural content to class material and providing students with continuous mentorship and tutorial services. The implementation of culturally inclusive admission policies and curricula programs will decrease learning inequalities while supporting higher education persistence and achievement of Indigenous students. Ethics and consent Ethical approval and consent were not required. Data availability No data is associated with this article. Extended data Complete PRISMA checklist have been added in the Zenodo repository at https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.15449074 The data is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0) License. Full citation of the extended data: Raúl, Q.-A. (2025) . PRISMA check list and extended data [Data set]. In F1000Research. Zenodo. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.15449074 References Aina C, Baici E, Casalone G, et al. : The determinants of university dropout: A review of the socio-economic literature. Soc. Econ. Plan. Sci. 2022; 79 : 101102. Publisher Full Text Alban M, Mauricio D: Predicting University Dropout trough Data Mining: A systematic Literature. Indian J. Sci. Technol. 2019; 12 (4): 1–12. Publisher Full Text Álvarez Díaz A, Storey Meza R: Higher education and ethnicity: A case study with Aymara students. J. Community Psychol. 2021; 49 (1): 186–201. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text Arias A, Linares-Vásquez M, Héndez-Puerto NR: Undergraduate Dropout in Colombia: A Systematic Literature Review of Causes and Solutions. J. Lat. Educ. 2024; 23 (2): 612–627. Publisher Full Text Barragán Moreno SP, González Támara L: Complexities of student dropout in higher education: a multidimensional analysis. Front. Educ. 2024; 9 . Publisher Full Text Barroso PCF, Oliveira ÍM, Noronha-Sousa D, et al. : DROPOUT FACTORS IN HIGHER EDUCATION: A LITERATURE REVIEW. Psicologia Escolar e Educacional. 2022; 26 . Publisher Full Text Benitez M, Ramírez S: Características de la deserción de estudiantes indígenas con acceso directo a la carrera de enfermería.Facultad de Enfermería y Obstetricia. Academic Disclosure. 2023; 6 (1): 34–41. Publisher Full Text Bergamaschi MA, Barcelos-Doebber M, Oliveira-Brito P: Estudantes indígenas na Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul - desafios do acesso e permanência. Revista Del Cisen Tramas/Maepova. 2016; 4 (2): 167–184. Blackburn H: The Status of Women in STEM in Higher Education in the United States during the COVID-19 Pandemic: A Literature Review 2020-2022. Sci. Technol. Libr. 2023; 42 (2): 180–200. Publisher Full Text Bustelo M, Frisancho V, Viollaz M: Unequal Opportunities for Indigenous Peoples and African Descendants.2023. Publisher Full Text Cadena Iñiguez P, Rendón-Medel R, Aguilar-Ávila J, et al. : Métodos cuantitativos, métodos cualitativos o su combinación en la investigación: un acercamiento en las ciencias sociales. Revista Mexicana de Ciencias Agrícolas. 2017; 8 (7): 1603–1617. Publisher Full Text Cairney P, Kippin S: The future of education equity policy in a COVID-19 world: a qualitative systematic review of lessons from education policymaking. Open Res. Eur. 2022; 1 : 78. Publisher Full Text Calegare M, Sales T d N: REPORTS ON THE PERMANENCE OF INDIGENOUS STUDENTS IN THE POST-GRATUATION PROGRAMS AT THE FEDERAL UNIVERSITY OF AMAZONAS. Psicologia Escolar e Educacional. 2023; 27 . Publisher Full Text Callejo-González JJ, Ruiz-Herrero JA: Factors influencing the decision of young adults to remain in their rural environment: Social origin, education and gender. J. Rural. Stud. 2024; 106 : 103206. Publisher Full Text Chanana K: Accessing higher education: the dilemma of schooling women, minorities, Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes in contemporary India. High. Educ. 1993; 26 (1): 69–92. Publisher Full Text Cortina R, Earl A: Embracing interculturality and Indigenous knowledge in Latin American higher education. Compare: A Journal of Comparative and International Education. 2021; 51 (8): 1208–1225. Publisher Full Text Cotton DR, Nash T, Kneale P: Supporting the retention of non-traditional students in Higher Education using a resilience framework. Eur. Educ. Res. J. 2017; 16 (1): 62–79. Publisher Full Text Cruz Pérez O, Esteban Silvestre H, García Lara GA: Opresión y resistencia. Vivencias de mujeres indígenas universitarias/Oppression and resistance. Experiences of indigenous university women. RICSH Revista Iberoamericana de Las Ciencias Sociales y Humanísticas. 2018; 7 (14): 25–40. Publisher Full Text Dadi AF, He V, Guenther J, et al. : Transitional pathways through middle school for First Nations students in the Northern Territory of Australia. Aust. Educ. Res. 2024; 51 (4): 1607–1626. Publisher Full Text De Gracia Vega JY, Vega de Martínez I: FACTORES QUE CONTRIBUYEN A LA DESERCIÓN DE LOS ESTUDIANTES QUE CURSAN LA LICENCIATURA EN EDUCACIÓN PRIMARIA, DEL ANEXO CERRO PUERCO, COMARCA NGÄBE BUGLÉ, 2022. Revista Colegiada de Ciencia. 2024; 6 (1): 116–124. Publisher Full Text Eduardo JP, Gabriel AG: Indigenous Peoples and the Right to Education: The Dumagat Experience in the Provinces of Nueva Ecija and Aurora, in the Philippines. SAGE Open. 2021; 11 (2). Publisher Full Text Fonchingong Che C: Reframing social justice through indigenous know-how: Implications for social development, policy and practice. Global Social Policy. 2024; 24 (1): 5–24. Publisher Full Text García-Vita M d M, Medina-García M, Polo Amashta GP, et al. : Socio-Educational Factors to Promote Educational Inclusion in Higher Education. A Question of Student Achievement. Educ. Sci. 2021; 11 (3): 123. Publisher Full Text Gittelsohn J, Belcourt A, Magarati M, et al. : Building Capacity for Productive Indigenous Community-University Partnerships. Prev. Sci. 2020; 21 (S1): 22–32. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text Goksen F, Cemalcilar Z: Social capital and cultural distance as predictors of early school dropout: Implications for community action for Turkish internal migrants. Int. J. Intercult. Relat. 2010; 34 (2): 163–175. Publisher Full Text Gutiérrez R, López E, Llambí L, et al. : Higher Education and Indigenous Nationalities: Challenges for Inclusion in the Ecuadorian Amazonian Region. Creat. Educ. 2015; 06 (09): 847–854. Publisher Full Text Gutierrez-Pachas DA, Garcia-Zanabria G, Cuadros-Vargas E, et al. : Supporting Decision-Making Process on Higher Education Dropout by Analyzing Academic, Socioeconomic, and Equity Factors through Machine Learning and Survival Analysis Methods in the Latin American Context. Educ. Sci. 2023; 13 (2): 154. Publisher Full Text Guzman Rincón A, Barragán S, Cosenz F, et al. : Prevention and Mitigation of Rural Higher Education Dropout in Colombia: A Dynamic Performance Management Approach. F1000Research. 2023; 12 : 497. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text Halabieh H, Hawkins S, Bernstein AE, et al. : The Future of Higher Education: Identifying Current Educational Problems and Proposed Solutions. Educ. Sci. 2022; 12 (12): 888. Publisher Full Text Hearn S, Benton M, Funnell S, et al. : Investigation of the factors contributing to Indigenous students’ retention and attrition rates at the University of Adelaide. Aust. J. Indig. Educ. 2019; 50 (1): 20–28. Publisher Full Text Herbaut E: Overcoming failure in higher education: Social inequalities and compensatory advantage in dropout patterns. Acta Sociologica. 2021; 64 (4): 383–402. Publisher Full Text Hill G, Woodroffe T, Golebiowska K: Indigenous and International Student Experiences of Navigating Higher Education in Post-Covid and Post-AI Universities. J. Int. Stud. 2024; 14 (4): 801–820. Publisher Full Text Hussein A: The use of Triangulation in Social Sciences Research. Journal of Comparative. Soc. Work. 2009; 4 (1): 106–117. Publisher Full Text Ingram JC, Castagno AE, Camplain R, et al. : Role of Professional Societies on Increasing Indigenous Peoples’ Participation and Leadership in STEMM. Front. Educ. 2021; 6 . Publisher Full Text Jorgensen R: Creating opportunities for vulnerable indigenous learners to succeed in vocational education. ZDM. 2020; 52 (3): 571–580. Publisher Full Text Kirby E, Tolstikov-Mast Y, Walker JL: Retention challenges for indigenous Peruvian college students on Beca 18 scholarship and strategies to improve their experiences and academic success. Diaspora Indig. Minor. Educ. 2020; 14 (3): 162–176. Publisher Full Text Koopmann J, Zimmer LM, Lörz M: The impact of COVID-19 on social inequalities in German higher education. An analysis of dropout intentions of vulnerable student groups. Eur. J. High. Educ. 2024; 14 (2): 290–307. Publisher Full Text Kozlova MA, Kozlov AI, Kornienko DS: Inclusion against stress: Higher education for representatives of the indigenous peoples of Russia. Vestnik Tomskogo Gosudarstvennogo Universiteta. 2022; 474 : 144–152. Publisher Full Text Kukulska-Hulme A, Giri RA, Dawadi S, et al. : Languages and technologies in education at school and outside of school: Perspectives from young people in low-resource countries in Africa and Asia. Front. Commun. 2023; 8 . Publisher Full Text Lecy N, Osteen P: The Effects of Childhood Trauma on College Completion. Res. High. Educ. 2022; 63 (6): 1058–1072. Publisher Full Text Legault L, Green-Demers I, Pelletier L: Why do high school students lack motivation in the classroom? Toward an understanding of academic amotivation and the role of social support. J. Educ. Psychol. 2006; 98 (3): 567–582. Publisher Full Text Li IW, Carroll DR: Factors influencing dropout and academic performance: an Australian higher education equity perspective. J. High. Educ. Policy Manag. 2020; 42 (1): 14–30. Publisher Full Text Li IW, Jackson D: Influence of entry pathway and equity group status on retention and the student experience in higher education. High. Educ. 2024; 87 (5): 1411–1431. Publisher Full Text Loureiro A, Carvalho C, Rodrigues M d O: Affirmative Action for Black, Indigenous and Quilombola Students at a Brazilian University. Societies. 2024; 14 (9): 189. Publisher Full Text Lydster C, Murray J: Understanding the Challenges, Yet Focusing on the Successes: An Investigation into Indigenous University Students’ Academic Success. Aust. J. Indig. Educ. 2019; 48 (2): 107–118. Publisher Full Text Mardon A, Ahmed R: THE EDUCATION GAP IN INDIGENOUS COMMUNITIES: CANADA’S REALITY. SocioEdu: Sociological Education. 2023; 4 (2): 48–52. Publisher Full Text Martinez D: School Culture and American Indian Educational Outcomes. Procedia. Soc. Behav. Sci. 2014; 116 : 199–205. Publisher Full Text McKinley Jones Brayboy B, Solyom JA, Castagno AE: Indigenous Peoples in Higher Education. J. Am. Indian Educ. 2015; 54 (1): 154–186. Publisher Full Text Meneses Pardo AI: Factores asociados a la deserción de estudiantes que ingresaron por condición de excepción indígena a la Universidad del Valle en 2001-II. Sociedad y Economía. 2011; 20 : 69–98. Reference Source Mosquera-Guerrero A, Rodríguez Martínez J, Ordóñez Abril DY, et al. : Project design and development in indigenous communities: a literature review. Gestão & Produção. 2023; 30 . Publisher Full Text Munizaga Mellado FR, Cifuentes Orellana MB, Beltrán Gabrie AJ: Retención y Abandono Estudiantil en la Educación Superior Universitaria en América Latina y el Caribe. Una Revisión Sistemática. Education Policy Analysis Archives. 2018; 26 : 61. Publisher Full Text Mustafa F, Nguyen HTM, Gao X(A): The challenges and solutions of technology integration in rural schools: A systematic literature review. Int. J. Educ. Res. 2024; 126 : 102380. Publisher Full Text Nelson HJ, Cox-White TL-A, Ziefflie BA: Indigenous students: Barriers and success strategies-A review of existing literature. J. Nurs. Educ. Pract. 2018; 9 (3): 70. Publisher Full Text Nguyen NH, Subhan FB, Williams K, et al. : Barriers and Mitigating Strategies to Healthcare Access in Indigenous Communities of Canada: A Narrative Review. Healthcare. 2020; 8 (2): 112. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text Oliver R, Grote E, Rochecouste J, et al. : Indigenous Student Perspectives on Support and Impediments at University. Aust. J. Indig. Educ. 2015; 45 (1): 23–35. Publisher Full Text Page MJ, McKenzie JE, Bossuyt PM, et al. : The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ. 2021; 372 : n71. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text Perez-Castro J: Entre serpientes y escaleras: Las trayectorias de un grupo de estudiantes indígenas en la universidad. Educ. Policy Anal. Arch. 2024; 32 . Publisher Full Text Pilcher N, Cortazzi M: “Qualitative” and “quantitative” methods and approaches across subject fields: implications for research values, assumptions, and practices. Qual. Quant. 2024; 58 (3): 2357–2387. Publisher Full Text Quincho Apumayta R, Carrillo Cayllahua J, Ccencho Pari A, et al. : University Dropout: A Systematic Review of the Main Determinant Factors (2020-2024). F1000Research. 2024; 13 : 942. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text Rafael Riveros LE, Evangelista García AA, Benítez López J: Interrupción de los estudios universitarios en mujeres indígenas de Calakmul: violencias epistémicas en espacios de reciente colonización. Revista Pueblos y Fronteras Digital. 2024; 19 : 1–31. Publisher Full Text Raúl Q-A: PRISMA check list and extended data. [Data set]. F1000Research. Zenodo. 2025. Publisher Full Text Rodríguez Gallegos M d R, Alvites-Huamaní CG: Factores sociodemográficos, intra y extraescolares que afectan el proceso de deserción en estudiantes en situación vulnerables. LEX - REVISTA DE LA FACULTAD DE DERECHO Y CIENCIAS POLÍTICAS. 2023; 21 (31): 401. Publisher Full Text Rodríguez NM, Ossola MM: Trayectorias escolares y estrategias de permanencia entre jóvenes indígenas universitarios (Salta, Argentina). RUNA, Archivo Para Las Ciencias Del Hombre. 2021; 43 (1): 77–94. Publisher Full Text Salazar Cóndor V: Determinantes de pérdida de becas universitarias en un programa social de Perú dirigido a estudiantes procedentes de familias pobres y vulnerables. RELIEVE - Revista Electrónica de Investigación y Evaluación Educativa. 2022; 28 (1). Publisher Full Text Saldarriaga Isaza CA, Manduca T, Ochoa GI: Permanencia y deserción de estudiantes del programa PEAMA de la Universidad Nacional de Colombia - Sede Amazonia. Mundo Amazónico. 2019; 10 (1). Publisher Full Text Salmi J, D’Addio A: Policies for achieving inclusion in higher education. Policy Rev. High. Educ. 2021; 5 (1): 47–72. Publisher Full Text Schmidt Araneda B, Boero Villagrán P, Méndez Vera J: Factores que influyen en la deserción universitaria: El caso de una universidad estatal chilena. Rev. Port. Educ. 2023; 36 (1): e23002. Publisher Full Text Silva-Martínez G, Iglesias-Martínez MJ, Lozano-Cabezas I: A Qualitative Study on Barriers in Learning Opportunities in Ecuadorian Higher Education. Societies. 2023; 13 (3): 56. Publisher Full Text Smith DG: The promise of diversity for higher education: Making it work. Johns Hopkins University Press; 2024. Publisher Full Text Timmis S, Muhuro P: De-coding or de-colonising the technocratic university? Rural students’ digital transitions to South African higher education. Learn. Media Technol. 2019; 44 (3): 252–266. Publisher Full Text Toyon MAS: Sociodemographic Attributes and Dropout Intentions of Working University Students: Evidence from Estonia. Societies. 2024; 14 (7): 116. Publisher Full Text Valencia Quecano LI, Guzmán Rincón A, Barragán Moreno S: Dropout in postgraduate programs: a underexplored phenomenon – a scoping review. Cogent. Education. 2024; 11 (1). Publisher Full Text Van Cott DL: Building inclusive democracies: Indigenous peoples and ethnic minorities in Latin America. Democratization. 2005; 12 (5): 820–837. Publisher Full Text Véliz Palomino JC, Ortega AM: Dropout Intentions in Higher Education: Systematic Literature Review. J. Effic. Responsib. Educ. Sci. 2023; 16 (2): 149–158. Publisher Full Text Venkatesan RG, Karmegam D, Mappillairaju B: Exploring statistical approaches for predicting student dropout in education: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J. Comput. Soc. Sci. 2024; 7 (1): 171–196. Publisher Full Text Walton P, Hamilton K, Clark N, et al. : Indigenous university student persistence: Supports, obstacles, and recommendations. Canadian Journal of Education/Revue Canadienne de l’éducation. 2020; 43 (2): 430–464. Webb A: Getting there and staying in: first-generation indigenous students’ educational pathways into Chilean higher education. Int. J. Qual. Stud. Educ. 2019; 32 (5): 529–546. Publisher Full Text Wilson P: Barriers to Indigenous Perspectives in Education. Revista de Estudios de Posgrado En Educación de La BU. 2021; 13 (14): 11–16. Yu Y, Appiah D, Zulu B, et al. : Integrating Rural Development, Education, and Management: Challenges and Strategies. Sustainability. 2024; 16 (15): 6474. Publisher Full Text Comments on this article Comments (0) Version 2 VERSION 2 PUBLISHED 02 Jul 2025 ADD YOUR COMMENT Comment Author details Author details 1 Universidad Nacional de Huancavelica, Huancavelica, Huancavelica, Peru 2 Universidad Nacional Autonoma Altoandina de Tarma, Tarma, Junin, Peru Raúl Quincho-Apumayta Roles: Funding Acquisition, Project Administration, Supervision, Writing – Original Draft Preparation Javier Carrillo Cayllahua Roles: Data Curation, Formal Analysis, Validation, Writing – Review & Editing Abraham Ccencho Pari Roles: Methodology, Software, Validation, Visualization Vilma Inga Choque Roles: Data Curation, Formal Analysis, Resources, Writing – Review & Editing Juan Cárdenas-Valverde Roles: Investigation, Resources, Software, Supervision, Writing – Original Draft Preparation Competing interests No competing interests were disclosed. Grant information Our study is supported by the Universidad Nacional de Huancavelica Peru and FOCAM 03 project. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript. Article Versions (2) version 2 Revised Published: 12 Dec 2025, 14:641 https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.162508.2 version 1 Published: 02 Jul 2025, 14:641 https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.162508.1 Copyright © 2025 Quincho-Apumayta R et al . This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. Download Export To Sciwheel Bibtex EndNote ProCite Ref. Manager (RIS) Sente metrics Views Downloads F1000Research - - PubMed Central info_outline Data from PMC are received and updated monthly. - - Citations open_in_new 0 open_in_new 0 open_in_new SEE MORE DETAILS CITE how to cite this article Quincho-Apumayta R, Carrillo Cayllahua J, Ccencho Pari A et al. University Dropout Among Indigenous University Students: A Global Systematic Review [version 2; peer review: 1 approved with reservations, 1 not approved] . F1000Research 2025, 14 :641 ( https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.162508.2 ) NOTE: If applicable, it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in all citations of this article. COPY CITATION DETAILS track receive updates on this article Track an article to receive email alerts on any updates to this article. TRACK THIS ARTICLE Share Open Peer Review Current Reviewer Status: ? Key to Reviewer Statuses VIEW HIDE Approved The paper is scientifically sound in its current form and only minor, if any, improvements are suggested Approved with reservations A number of small changes, sometimes more significant revisions are required to address specific details and improve the papers academic merit. Not approved Fundamental flaws in the paper seriously undermine the findings and conclusions Version 2 VERSION 2 PUBLISHED 12 Dec 2025 Revised Views 0 Cite How to cite this report: Nopas Ds. Reviewer Report For: University Dropout Among Indigenous University Students: A Global Systematic Review [version 2; peer review: 1 approved with reservations, 1 not approved] . F1000Research 2025, 14 :641 ( https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.191476.r447499 ) The direct URL for this report is: https://f1000research.com/articles/14-641/v2#referee-response-447499 NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in this citation. Close Copy Citation Details Reviewer Report 20 Jan 2026 Dech-siri Nopas , Kasetsart University, Bangkok, Thailand Approved with Reservations VIEWS 0 https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.191476.r447499 Thank you for the chance to review this systematic review. The topic is important, and the authors aim to address a meaningful gap by looking at university dropout among Indigenous students across different regions. I appreciate the effort to revise ... Continue reading READ ALL Thank you for the chance to review this systematic review. The topic is important, and the authors aim to address a meaningful gap by looking at university dropout among Indigenous students across different regions. I appreciate the effort to revise the manuscript after the previous review. However, even with these revisions, the paper still needs substantial improvement before it can be considered scientifically sound. Below is a summary of the paper, followed by specific comments linked to the questions in the review form. I aim to be honest and constructive so the authors can strengthen the work. The article presents a systematic review of factors associated with university dropout among Indigenous students worldwide. The authors searched three databases using multilingual terms (English, Spanish, Portuguese), identified 30 studies, extracted information on dropout factors, and categorized them into structural, academic, socio-economic, cultural, and institutional domains. The review concludes that Indigenous university students face multiple intertwined barriers and that targeted support systems are needed. The topic is highly relevant, and the intention is good. However, the execution of the systematic review still has major methodological and reporting issues. Major Comments 1. Rationale and objectives — Partly The authors explain the importance of the topic, but the objectives feel broad and not sharply defined. A systematic review must have clear, focused, operational objectives. Here, the aim is stated, but not in a way that guides a reproducible review. How to fix Clearly state specific review questions (e.g., “What factors contribute to dropout among Indigenous university students?”). Show how these questions guided the search, screening, and synthesis. Avoid mixing general background with the rationale—make the gap and purpose stand out more clearly. 2. Methods and reproducibility — No This is the biggest weakness of the paper. Even in the revised version, the methods section does not meet PRISMA expectations. Issues The search strategy is described generally but not detailed enough to replicate. The inclusion/exclusion criteria are too broad and sometimes vague. No description of who screened the studies, how disagreements were handled, or whether tools like Rayyan were used. The PRISMA flow diagram numbers do not fully align with the narrative explanation. The review calls itself “global,” but the search strategy naturally limits results almost fully to Latin America and Oceania. Risk of bias is mentioned but not shown—no table, no scoring, no explanation of how it influenced the synthesis. How to fix Provide the full search strings exactly as used. Describe the selection process clearly (number of reviewers, disagreements, tools used). Add a quality appraisal table showing risk-of-bias results for each study. Explain how risk-of-bias influenced the synthesis. Clarify the term “global” or adjust the title. These are essential for scientific validity. 3. Statistical analysis — Not applicable This review does not perform statistical pooling or meta-analysis. Acknowledging "not applicable" is appropriate. However, the authors should still strengthen their narrative synthesis to show patterns rather than repeating table content. 4. Results and analysis — Partly The authors provide detailed tables, which is a strong point. But the narrative results mainly repeat what is already shown in the tables. Issues Too descriptive; lacks synthesis. No comparison across regions, time periods, or characteristics. Some claims about dropout causes are made without referencing specific studies. No integration of risk-of-bias assessments (because this was not done clearly). How to fix Synthesize patterns (e.g., “Across Latin America, the most frequent factor was X, whereas in Oceania it was Y.”) Identify contradictions or gaps. Link findings directly to included studies. Integrate risk-of-bias into interpretation. 5. Conclusions — Partly supported The conclusions are reasonable, but they go beyond what the data actually supports. Some statements generalize Indigenous experiences in ways that are not backed by the included studies. How to fix Base all conclusions strictly on your extracted data. Avoid claims not directly supported by included studies. Clarify that conclusions reflect available research, not global Indigenous populations. Are the rationale for, and objectives of, the Systematic Review clearly stated? Partly Are sufficient details of the methods and analysis provided to allow replication by others? No Is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate? Not applicable Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results presented in the review? Partly If this is a Living Systematic Review, is the ‘living’ method appropriate and is the search schedule clearly defined and justified? (‘Living Systematic Review’ or a variation of this term should be included in the title.) Not applicable Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed. Reviewer Expertise: Lifelong Learning; Adult Education; Community Education; Educational Technology; AI in Education; Digital Pedagogy; Teacher Development I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard, however I have significant reservations, as outlined above. Close READ LESS CITE CITE HOW TO CITE THIS REPORT Nopas Ds. Reviewer Report For: University Dropout Among Indigenous University Students: A Global Systematic Review [version 2; peer review: 1 approved with reservations, 1 not approved] . F1000Research 2025, 14 :641 ( https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.191476.r447499 ) The direct URL for this report is: https://f1000research.com/articles/14-641/v2#referee-response-447499 NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in all citations of this article. COPY CITATION DETAILS Report a concern Respond or Comment COMMENT ON THIS REPORT Version 1 VERSION 1 PUBLISHED 02 Jul 2025 Views 0 Cite How to cite this report: Guzmán Rincón A. Reviewer Report For: University Dropout Among Indigenous University Students: A Global Systematic Review [version 2; peer review: 1 approved with reservations, 1 not approved] . F1000Research 2025, 14 :641 ( https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.178718.r398084 ) The direct URL for this report is: https://f1000research.com/articles/14-641/v1#referee-response-398084 NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in this citation. Close Copy Citation Details Reviewer Report 05 Nov 2025 Alfredo Guzmán Rincón , Corporación Universitaria de Asturias, Bogotá, Bogota, Colombia Not Approved VIEWS 0 https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.178718.r398084 I have had the opportunity to carefully review your manuscript. First, I would like to congratulate you for addressing such an important topic as dropout among Indigenous students in higher education, a group that has been little studied in the ... Continue reading READ ALL I have had the opportunity to carefully review your manuscript. First, I would like to congratulate you for addressing such an important topic as dropout among Indigenous students in higher education, a group that has been little studied in the literature. After thoroughly reading the manuscript, I believe it requires substantial improvement. Below, I outline each of my comments: The introduction must be strengthened. While, as an expert in the field, I understand the importance of the topic and acknowledge that no previous studies have approached it with the same level of detail, the section must be restructured to clearly justify the need for this review. This implies reviewing in depth the content and scope of existing literature reviews on dropout in higher education, and highlighting the original contribution of your work. In addition, the background should be expanded to include a definition of dropout, and a discussion on the specific problems it poses for Indigenous students, their families, higher education institutions, and the state itself. I also recommend including a clear research question, preferably structured using the PICO method or a similar framework. Currently, the absence of a clear research question makes it difficult to delineate the scope of the review. I suggest reviewing the following reference for guidance: [Reference 1] Regarding the methodology, although the PRISMA 2020 statement is mentioned, not all required elements are addressed and several present deficiencies. I elaborate on this below: Eligibility criteria: No criteria are provided concerning study design, methods, sample characteristics, etc. Information sources: While some databases are mentioned, the rationale for their selection is not explained. I recommend reconsidering the use of Latindex, as this database does not necessarily index peer-reviewed journals. Search strategy: The search strategy is flawed, as it does not include all the terms associated with the object of study. This seems to result from the absence of a well-defined research question. Terms such as: ("higher education" OR university OR college OR "tertiary education" OR Bachelor OR degree OR undergraduate) AND (drop?out OR "dropping out" OR desertion OR attrition OR withdrawal) AND (Indigenous OR “Aboriginal Peoples” OR “Native Peoples” OR “First Nations”) are not evident. I also recommend including Portuguese terms, as studies in this language might otherwise be excluded. Additionally, studies from the health field using "dropout" to refer to treatment non-completion should be excluded. Selection process: This needs to be described in more detail—how many reviewers participated, how disagreements were resolved, and most importantly, the reasons for study exclusion. Data collection process: Although briefly described, it lacks the necessary depth. A matrix is mentioned, but the way variables were categorized is crucial and must be clarified. I suggest specifying the coding method used to build the categories found in the results section. Data items: Currently included under “data extraction,” but it should be presented as a separate section. Study risk of bias assessment: This key component is missing. I recommend the following reference: [Reference 2] Synthesis methods: This section must be expanded to align with the results presented. In the results section, a synthesis of the study selection process is missing—i.e., how the final 21 studies were selected. While this is described in the methodology, it should be part of the results section. The characteristics of the selected studies and the risk of bias assessment results are also not detailed. A general synthesis of the studies is needed. One strength of the paper is the way information is presented in tables. However, the content in the tables and the text is often repetitive. I encourage the authors to avoid duplicating insights. The results section would benefit from not only presenting variables and qualitative explanations related to dropout, but also supporting these findings with data drawn directly from the reviewed articles. The discussion is generally well written, but it lacks a clear statement on the contribution of this review to existing knowledge. Are the rationale for, and objectives of, the Systematic Review clearly stated? No Are sufficient details of the methods and analysis provided to allow replication by others? No Is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate? Not applicable Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results presented in the review? Partly If this is a Living Systematic Review, is the ‘living’ method appropriate and is the search schedule clearly defined and justified? (‘Living Systematic Review’ or a variation of this term should be included in the title.) Not applicable References 1. Carrera-Rivera A, Ochoa W, Larrinaga F, Lasa G: How-to conduct a systematic literature review: A quick guide for computer science research. MethodsX . 2022; 9 . Publisher Full Text 2. Shaheen N, Shaheen A, Ramadan A, Hefnawy M, et al.: Appraising systematic reviews: a comprehensive guide to ensuring validity and reliability. Frontiers in Research Metrics and Analytics . 2023; 8 . Publisher Full Text Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed. Reviewer Expertise: Education, dropout in higher education, curriculum, rural studies. I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to state that I do not consider it to be of an acceptable scientific standard, for reasons outlined above. Close READ LESS CITE CITE HOW TO CITE THIS REPORT Guzmán Rincón A. Reviewer Report For: University Dropout Among Indigenous University Students: A Global Systematic Review [version 2; peer review: 1 approved with reservations, 1 not approved] . F1000Research 2025, 14 :641 ( https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.178718.r398084 ) The direct URL for this report is: https://f1000research.com/articles/14-641/v1#referee-response-398084 NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in all citations of this article. COPY CITATION DETAILS Report a concern Author Response 20 Jan 2026 Raul Quincho Apumayta , Universidad Nacional de Huancavelica, Huancavelica, Peru 20 Jan 2026 Author Response General comment I have had the opportunity to carefully review your manuscript. First, I would like to congratulate you for addressing such an important topic as dropout among Indigenous students ... Continue reading General comment I have had the opportunity to carefully review your manuscript. First, I would like to congratulate you for addressing such an important topic as dropout among Indigenous students in higher education, a group that has been little studied in the literature. After thoroughly reading the manuscript, I believe it requires substantial improvement. Below, I outline each of my comments: Answer: We sincerely thank the reviewer for the careful reading of our manuscript and for recognizing the importance of addressing university dropout among Indigenous students, a population that remains underrepresented in the higher education literature. We appreciate the constructive and detailed nature of the comments provided. In response, we have undertaken a substantial revision of the manuscript to improve its conceptual clarity, methodological rigor, transparency, and analytical depth. Specifically, we strengthened the Introduction to better justify the need for the review and clarify its original contribution; revised the Methods section to ensure full alignment with PRISMA 2020 standards; enhanced the Results section by adding a clear synthesis of the study selection process, study characteristics, and risk-of-bias findings; and refined the Discussion to explicitly articulate the contribution of this review to existing knowledge. We believe these revisions have significantly improved the overall quality, coherence, and scientific value of the manuscript. Comment 1: The introduction must be strengthened. While, as an expert in the field, I understand the importance of the topic and acknowledge that no previous studies have approached it with the same level of detail, the section must be restructured to clearly justify the need for this review. This implies reviewing in depth the content and scope of existing literature reviews on dropout in higher education and highlighting the original contribution of your work. In addition, the background should be expanded to include a definition of dropout, and a discussion on the specific problems it poses for Indigenous students, their families, higher education institutions, and the state itself. I also recommend including a clear research question, preferably structured using the PICO method or a similar framework. Currently, the absence of a clear research question makes it difficult to delineate the scope of the review. I suggest reviewing the following reference for guidance: Answer 1: Thank you for this important comment. The Introduction has been strengthened while preserving its original structure. We added a clearer operational definition of university dropout, explicitly addressing the heterogeneity of terms used in the literature. The background was expanded to more clearly situate this review within existing systematic reviews on higher education dropout, highlighting that prior syntheses largely focus on non-Indigenous populations and do not provide a global, Indigenous-centered analysis. We also expanded the discussion of the specific consequences of dropout for Indigenous students, their families, higher education institutions, and the state. Finally, the research question has been explicitly structured using a PICo framework (Population, Phenomenon of Interest, Context), clarifying the scope and methodological focus of the review. Comment 2: Regarding the methodology, although the PRISMA 2020 statement is mentioned, not all required elements are addressed and several present deficiencies. I elaborate on this below: Eligibility criteria: No criteria are provided concerning study design, methods, sample characteristics, etc. Information sources: While some databases are mentioned, the rationale for their selection is not explained. I recommend reconsidering the use of Latindex, as this database does not necessarily index peer-reviewed journals. Search strategy: The search strategy is flawed, as it does not include all the terms associated with the object of study. This seems to result from the absence of a well-defined research question. Terms such as: ("higher education" OR university OR college OR "tertiary education" OR Bachelor OR degree OR undergraduate) AND (drop?out OR "dropping out" OR desertion OR attrition OR withdrawal) AND (Indigenous OR “Aboriginal Peoples” OR “Native Peoples” OR “First Nations”) are not evident. I also recommend including Portuguese terms, as studies in this language might otherwise be excluded. Additionally, studies from the health field using "dropout" to refer to treatment non-completion should be excluded. Selection process: This needs to be described in more detail how many reviewers participated, how disagreements were resolved, and most importantly, the reasons for study exclusion. Data collection process: Although briefly described, it lacks the necessary depth. A matrix is mentioned, but the way variables were categorized is crucial and must be clarified. I suggest specifying the coding method used to build the categories found in the results section. Data items: Currently included under “data extraction,” but it should be presented as a separate section. Study risk of bias assessment: This key component is missing. I recommend the following reference: Synthesis methods: This section must be expanded to align with the results presented. Answer 2: Thank you for this detailed and constructive methodological feedback. The Methods section has been substantially revised to fully align with PRISMA 2020 requirements and to address each of the points raised. First, we clarified and expanded the eligibility criteria, explicitly specifying eligible study designs (qualitative, quantitative, and mixed-methods), methodological approaches, participant characteristics (Indigenous university students at undergraduate or postgraduate level), outcomes (dropout/attrition/non-completion), languages, and exclusion criteria. Second, the information sources section was revised to justify the selection of each database based on disciplinary coverage and relevance to education, social sciences, and Indigenous studies. Following the recommendation, Latindex was reconsidered and its results were screened with stricter criteria due to the presence of non–peer-reviewed content. Third, the search strategy was corrected and expanded to reflect a clearly defined research question. The revised strategy now includes comprehensive synonyms for higher education, dropout, and Indigenous populations, incorporates Portuguese terms to avoid language bias, and explicitly excludes health-related studies where “dropout” refers to treatment non-completion. Fourth, the selection process was described in greater detail, specifying the number of independent reviewers involved, the process for resolving disagreements, and the explicit reasons for exclusion at the full-text stage. Fifth, the data collection process was expanded to explain the structure of the extraction matrix and the inductive–deductive coding procedure used to categorize variables and derive the risk and protective factors reported in the Results. Sixth, data items were separated into their own subsection to clearly list all extracted variables, improving transparency and replicability. Seventh, a dedicated study risk-of-bias assessment subsection was added, applying an established tool for non-randomized and observational studies, as recommended. Finally, the synthesis methods section was expanded to clearly explain how quantitative data were descriptively synthesized and how qualitative findings were thematically integrated, ensuring consistency with the results presented. Overall, these revisions substantially strengthen the methodological rigor, transparency, and PRISMA 2020 compliance of the study. Comment 3: In the results section, a synthesis of the study selection process is missing i.e., how the final 21 studies were selected. While this is described in the methodology, it should be part of the results section. The characteristics of the selected studies and the risk of bias assessment results are also not detailed. A general synthesis of the studies is needed. One strength of the paper is the way information is presented in tables. However, the content in the tables and the text is often repetitive. I encourage the authors to avoid duplicating insights. The results section would benefit from not only presenting variables and qualitative explanations related to dropout but also supporting these findings with data drawn directly from the reviewed articles. The discussion is generally well written, but it lacks a clear statement on the contribution of this review to existing knowledge. Answer 3: Thank you for this insightful comment. We have revised both the Results and Discussion sections to address these concerns and improve clarity, synthesis, and contribution. First, a dedicated synthesis of the study selection process has been added at the beginning of the Results section. This paragraph summarizes how the initial records were reduced to the final 21 included studies, explicitly referring to the PRISMA flow diagram, thereby ensuring that the selection process is clearly reported not only in the Methods but also in the Results, as recommended. Second, we expanded the general synthesis of the included studies by explicitly summarizing their main characteristics (geographic distribution, study designs, institutional types, populations, and data sources) in the Results narrative, rather than relying solely on tables. In addition, the risk-of-bias assessment results are now explicitly summarized in the text, highlighting overall methodological quality and common limitations observed across studies. Third, to reduce redundancy, we revised the Results section to avoid repetition between tables and text. Tables are now used primarily to present detailed descriptive information, while the text focuses on synthesizing patterns, trends, and contrasts across studies, rather than restating tabulated data. Fourth, we strengthened the Results by explicitly supporting qualitative interpretations with quantitative evidence drawn from the reviewed articles. Where possible, proportions, ranges, and frequencies (e.g., prevalence of dropout, frequency of reported risk and protective factors) are now reported directly in the text to substantiate the synthesis. Finally, in response to the last point, we added a clear statement of the contribution of this review to the Discussion section. This paragraph explicitly explains how the review advances existing knowledge by providing the first global, Indigenous-centered synthesis of university dropout, integrating risk and protective factors across cultural, geographic, and institutional contexts, and identifying key evidence gaps to inform future research and policy. These revisions strengthen the Results and Discussion by improving transparency, analytical synthesis, and the articulation of the study’s original contribution. General comment I have had the opportunity to carefully review your manuscript. First, I would like to congratulate you for addressing such an important topic as dropout among Indigenous students in higher education, a group that has been little studied in the literature. After thoroughly reading the manuscript, I believe it requires substantial improvement. Below, I outline each of my comments: Answer: We sincerely thank the reviewer for the careful reading of our manuscript and for recognizing the importance of addressing university dropout among Indigenous students, a population that remains underrepresented in the higher education literature. We appreciate the constructive and detailed nature of the comments provided. In response, we have undertaken a substantial revision of the manuscript to improve its conceptual clarity, methodological rigor, transparency, and analytical depth. Specifically, we strengthened the Introduction to better justify the need for the review and clarify its original contribution; revised the Methods section to ensure full alignment with PRISMA 2020 standards; enhanced the Results section by adding a clear synthesis of the study selection process, study characteristics, and risk-of-bias findings; and refined the Discussion to explicitly articulate the contribution of this review to existing knowledge. We believe these revisions have significantly improved the overall quality, coherence, and scientific value of the manuscript. Comment 1: The introduction must be strengthened. While, as an expert in the field, I understand the importance of the topic and acknowledge that no previous studies have approached it with the same level of detail, the section must be restructured to clearly justify the need for this review. This implies reviewing in depth the content and scope of existing literature reviews on dropout in higher education and highlighting the original contribution of your work. In addition, the background should be expanded to include a definition of dropout, and a discussion on the specific problems it poses for Indigenous students, their families, higher education institutions, and the state itself. I also recommend including a clear research question, preferably structured using the PICO method or a similar framework. Currently, the absence of a clear research question makes it difficult to delineate the scope of the review. I suggest reviewing the following reference for guidance: Answer 1: Thank you for this important comment. The Introduction has been strengthened while preserving its original structure. We added a clearer operational definition of university dropout, explicitly addressing the heterogeneity of terms used in the literature. The background was expanded to more clearly situate this review within existing systematic reviews on higher education dropout, highlighting that prior syntheses largely focus on non-Indigenous populations and do not provide a global, Indigenous-centered analysis. We also expanded the discussion of the specific consequences of dropout for Indigenous students, their families, higher education institutions, and the state. Finally, the research question has been explicitly structured using a PICo framework (Population, Phenomenon of Interest, Context), clarifying the scope and methodological focus of the review. Comment 2: Regarding the methodology, although the PRISMA 2020 statement is mentioned, not all required elements are addressed and several present deficiencies. I elaborate on this below: Eligibility criteria: No criteria are provided concerning study design, methods, sample characteristics, etc. Information sources: While some databases are mentioned, the rationale for their selection is not explained. I recommend reconsidering the use of Latindex, as this database does not necessarily index peer-reviewed journals. Search strategy: The search strategy is flawed, as it does not include all the terms associated with the object of study. This seems to result from the absence of a well-defined research question. Terms such as: ("higher education" OR university OR college OR "tertiary education" OR Bachelor OR degree OR undergraduate) AND (drop?out OR "dropping out" OR desertion OR attrition OR withdrawal) AND (Indigenous OR “Aboriginal Peoples” OR “Native Peoples” OR “First Nations”) are not evident. I also recommend including Portuguese terms, as studies in this language might otherwise be excluded. Additionally, studies from the health field using "dropout" to refer to treatment non-completion should be excluded. Selection process: This needs to be described in more detail how many reviewers participated, how disagreements were resolved, and most importantly, the reasons for study exclusion. Data collection process: Although briefly described, it lacks the necessary depth. A matrix is mentioned, but the way variables were categorized is crucial and must be clarified. I suggest specifying the coding method used to build the categories found in the results section. Data items: Currently included under “data extraction,” but it should be presented as a separate section. Study risk of bias assessment: This key component is missing. I recommend the following reference: Synthesis methods: This section must be expanded to align with the results presented. Answer 2: Thank you for this detailed and constructive methodological feedback. The Methods section has been substantially revised to fully align with PRISMA 2020 requirements and to address each of the points raised. First, we clarified and expanded the eligibility criteria, explicitly specifying eligible study designs (qualitative, quantitative, and mixed-methods), methodological approaches, participant characteristics (Indigenous university students at undergraduate or postgraduate level), outcomes (dropout/attrition/non-completion), languages, and exclusion criteria. Second, the information sources section was revised to justify the selection of each database based on disciplinary coverage and relevance to education, social sciences, and Indigenous studies. Following the recommendation, Latindex was reconsidered and its results were screened with stricter criteria due to the presence of non–peer-reviewed content. Third, the search strategy was corrected and expanded to reflect a clearly defined research question. The revised strategy now includes comprehensive synonyms for higher education, dropout, and Indigenous populations, incorporates Portuguese terms to avoid language bias, and explicitly excludes health-related studies where “dropout” refers to treatment non-completion. Fourth, the selection process was described in greater detail, specifying the number of independent reviewers involved, the process for resolving disagreements, and the explicit reasons for exclusion at the full-text stage. Fifth, the data collection process was expanded to explain the structure of the extraction matrix and the inductive–deductive coding procedure used to categorize variables and derive the risk and protective factors reported in the Results. Sixth, data items were separated into their own subsection to clearly list all extracted variables, improving transparency and replicability. Seventh, a dedicated study risk-of-bias assessment subsection was added, applying an established tool for non-randomized and observational studies, as recommended. Finally, the synthesis methods section was expanded to clearly explain how quantitative data were descriptively synthesized and how qualitative findings were thematically integrated, ensuring consistency with the results presented. Overall, these revisions substantially strengthen the methodological rigor, transparency, and PRISMA 2020 compliance of the study. Comment 3: In the results section, a synthesis of the study selection process is missing i.e., how the final 21 studies were selected. While this is described in the methodology, it should be part of the results section. The characteristics of the selected studies and the risk of bias assessment results are also not detailed. A general synthesis of the studies is needed. One strength of the paper is the way information is presented in tables. However, the content in the tables and the text is often repetitive. I encourage the authors to avoid duplicating insights. The results section would benefit from not only presenting variables and qualitative explanations related to dropout but also supporting these findings with data drawn directly from the reviewed articles. The discussion is generally well written, but it lacks a clear statement on the contribution of this review to existing knowledge. Answer 3: Thank you for this insightful comment. We have revised both the Results and Discussion sections to address these concerns and improve clarity, synthesis, and contribution. First, a dedicated synthesis of the study selection process has been added at the beginning of the Results section. This paragraph summarizes how the initial records were reduced to the final 21 included studies, explicitly referring to the PRISMA flow diagram, thereby ensuring that the selection process is clearly reported not only in the Methods but also in the Results, as recommended. Second, we expanded the general synthesis of the included studies by explicitly summarizing their main characteristics (geographic distribution, study designs, institutional types, populations, and data sources) in the Results narrative, rather than relying solely on tables. In addition, the risk-of-bias assessment results are now explicitly summarized in the text, highlighting overall methodological quality and common limitations observed across studies. Third, to reduce redundancy, we revised the Results section to avoid repetition between tables and text. Tables are now used primarily to present detailed descriptive information, while the text focuses on synthesizing patterns, trends, and contrasts across studies, rather than restating tabulated data. Fourth, we strengthened the Results by explicitly supporting qualitative interpretations with quantitative evidence drawn from the reviewed articles. Where possible, proportions, ranges, and frequencies (e.g., prevalence of dropout, frequency of reported risk and protective factors) are now reported directly in the text to substantiate the synthesis. Finally, in response to the last point, we added a clear statement of the contribution of this review to the Discussion section. This paragraph explicitly explains how the review advances existing knowledge by providing the first global, Indigenous-centered synthesis of university dropout, integrating risk and protective factors across cultural, geographic, and institutional contexts, and identifying key evidence gaps to inform future research and policy. These revisions strengthen the Results and Discussion by improving transparency, analytical synthesis, and the articulation of the study’s original contribution. Competing Interests: no Close Report a concern Respond or Comment COMMENTS ON THIS REPORT Author Response 20 Jan 2026 Raul Quincho Apumayta , Universidad Nacional de Huancavelica, Huancavelica, Peru 20 Jan 2026 Author Response General comment I have had the opportunity to carefully review your manuscript. First, I would like to congratulate you for addressing such an important topic as dropout among Indigenous students ... Continue reading General comment I have had the opportunity to carefully review your manuscript. First, I would like to congratulate you for addressing such an important topic as dropout among Indigenous students in higher education, a group that has been little studied in the literature. After thoroughly reading the manuscript, I believe it requires substantial improvement. Below, I outline each of my comments: Answer: We sincerely thank the reviewer for the careful reading of our manuscript and for recognizing the importance of addressing university dropout among Indigenous students, a population that remains underrepresented in the higher education literature. We appreciate the constructive and detailed nature of the comments provided. In response, we have undertaken a substantial revision of the manuscript to improve its conceptual clarity, methodological rigor, transparency, and analytical depth. Specifically, we strengthened the Introduction to better justify the need for the review and clarify its original contribution; revised the Methods section to ensure full alignment with PRISMA 2020 standards; enhanced the Results section by adding a clear synthesis of the study selection process, study characteristics, and risk-of-bias findings; and refined the Discussion to explicitly articulate the contribution of this review to existing knowledge. We believe these revisions have significantly improved the overall quality, coherence, and scientific value of the manuscript. Comment 1: The introduction must be strengthened. While, as an expert in the field, I understand the importance of the topic and acknowledge that no previous studies have approached it with the same level of detail, the section must be restructured to clearly justify the need for this review. This implies reviewing in depth the content and scope of existing literature reviews on dropout in higher education and highlighting the original contribution of your work. In addition, the background should be expanded to include a definition of dropout, and a discussion on the specific problems it poses for Indigenous students, their families, higher education institutions, and the state itself. I also recommend including a clear research question, preferably structured using the PICO method or a similar framework. Currently, the absence of a clear research question makes it difficult to delineate the scope of the review. I suggest reviewing the following reference for guidance: Answer 1: Thank you for this important comment. The Introduction has been strengthened while preserving its original structure. We added a clearer operational definition of university dropout, explicitly addressing the heterogeneity of terms used in the literature. The background was expanded to more clearly situate this review within existing systematic reviews on higher education dropout, highlighting that prior syntheses largely focus on non-Indigenous populations and do not provide a global, Indigenous-centered analysis. We also expanded the discussion of the specific consequences of dropout for Indigenous students, their families, higher education institutions, and the state. Finally, the research question has been explicitly structured using a PICo framework (Population, Phenomenon of Interest, Context), clarifying the scope and methodological focus of the review. Comment 2: Regarding the methodology, although the PRISMA 2020 statement is mentioned, not all required elements are addressed and several present deficiencies. I elaborate on this below: Eligibility criteria: No criteria are provided concerning study design, methods, sample characteristics, etc. Information sources: While some databases are mentioned, the rationale for their selection is not explained. I recommend reconsidering the use of Latindex, as this database does not necessarily index peer-reviewed journals. Search strategy: The search strategy is flawed, as it does not include all the terms associated with the object of study. This seems to result from the absence of a well-defined research question. Terms such as: ("higher education" OR university OR college OR "tertiary education" OR Bachelor OR degree OR undergraduate) AND (drop?out OR "dropping out" OR desertion OR attrition OR withdrawal) AND (Indigenous OR “Aboriginal Peoples” OR “Native Peoples” OR “First Nations”) are not evident. I also recommend including Portuguese terms, as studies in this language might otherwise be excluded. Additionally, studies from the health field using "dropout" to refer to treatment non-completion should be excluded. Selection process: This needs to be described in more detail how many reviewers participated, how disagreements were resolved, and most importantly, the reasons for study exclusion. Data collection process: Although briefly described, it lacks the necessary depth. A matrix is mentioned, but the way variables were categorized is crucial and must be clarified. I suggest specifying the coding method used to build the categories found in the results section. Data items: Currently included under “data extraction,” but it should be presented as a separate section. Study risk of bias assessment: This key component is missing. I recommend the following reference: Synthesis methods: This section must be expanded to align with the results presented. Answer 2: Thank you for this detailed and constructive methodological feedback. The Methods section has been substantially revised to fully align with PRISMA 2020 requirements and to address each of the points raised. First, we clarified and expanded the eligibility criteria, explicitly specifying eligible study designs (qualitative, quantitative, and mixed-methods), methodological approaches, participant characteristics (Indigenous university students at undergraduate or postgraduate level), outcomes (dropout/attrition/non-completion), languages, and exclusion criteria. Second, the information sources section was revised to justify the selection of each database based on disciplinary coverage and relevance to education, social sciences, and Indigenous studies. Following the recommendation, Latindex was reconsidered and its results were screened with stricter criteria due to the presence of non–peer-reviewed content. Third, the search strategy was corrected and expanded to reflect a clearly defined research question. The revised strategy now includes comprehensive synonyms for higher education, dropout, and Indigenous populations, incorporates Portuguese terms to avoid language bias, and explicitly excludes health-related studies where “dropout” refers to treatment non-completion. Fourth, the selection process was described in greater detail, specifying the number of independent reviewers involved, the process for resolving disagreements, and the explicit reasons for exclusion at the full-text stage. Fifth, the data collection process was expanded to explain the structure of the extraction matrix and the inductive–deductive coding procedure used to categorize variables and derive the risk and protective factors reported in the Results. Sixth, data items were separated into their own subsection to clearly list all extracted variables, improving transparency and replicability. Seventh, a dedicated study risk-of-bias assessment subsection was added, applying an established tool for non-randomized and observational studies, as recommended. Finally, the synthesis methods section was expanded to clearly explain how quantitative data were descriptively synthesized and how qualitative findings were thematically integrated, ensuring consistency with the results presented. Overall, these revisions substantially strengthen the methodological rigor, transparency, and PRISMA 2020 compliance of the study. Comment 3: In the results section, a synthesis of the study selection process is missing i.e., how the final 21 studies were selected. While this is described in the methodology, it should be part of the results section. The characteristics of the selected studies and the risk of bias assessment results are also not detailed. A general synthesis of the studies is needed. One strength of the paper is the way information is presented in tables. However, the content in the tables and the text is often repetitive. I encourage the authors to avoid duplicating insights. The results section would benefit from not only presenting variables and qualitative explanations related to dropout but also supporting these findings with data drawn directly from the reviewed articles. The discussion is generally well written, but it lacks a clear statement on the contribution of this review to existing knowledge. Answer 3: Thank you for this insightful comment. We have revised both the Results and Discussion sections to address these concerns and improve clarity, synthesis, and contribution. First, a dedicated synthesis of the study selection process has been added at the beginning of the Results section. This paragraph summarizes how the initial records were reduced to the final 21 included studies, explicitly referring to the PRISMA flow diagram, thereby ensuring that the selection process is clearly reported not only in the Methods but also in the Results, as recommended. Second, we expanded the general synthesis of the included studies by explicitly summarizing their main characteristics (geographic distribution, study designs, institutional types, populations, and data sources) in the Results narrative, rather than relying solely on tables. In addition, the risk-of-bias assessment results are now explicitly summarized in the text, highlighting overall methodological quality and common limitations observed across studies. Third, to reduce redundancy, we revised the Results section to avoid repetition between tables and text. Tables are now used primarily to present detailed descriptive information, while the text focuses on synthesizing patterns, trends, and contrasts across studies, rather than restating tabulated data. Fourth, we strengthened the Results by explicitly supporting qualitative interpretations with quantitative evidence drawn from the reviewed articles. Where possible, proportions, ranges, and frequencies (e.g., prevalence of dropout, frequency of reported risk and protective factors) are now reported directly in the text to substantiate the synthesis. Finally, in response to the last point, we added a clear statement of the contribution of this review to the Discussion section. This paragraph explicitly explains how the review advances existing knowledge by providing the first global, Indigenous-centered synthesis of university dropout, integrating risk and protective factors across cultural, geographic, and institutional contexts, and identifying key evidence gaps to inform future research and policy. These revisions strengthen the Results and Discussion by improving transparency, analytical synthesis, and the articulation of the study’s original contribution. General comment I have had the opportunity to carefully review your manuscript. First, I would like to congratulate you for addressing such an important topic as dropout among Indigenous students in higher education, a group that has been little studied in the literature. After thoroughly reading the manuscript, I believe it requires substantial improvement. Below, I outline each of my comments: Answer: We sincerely thank the reviewer for the careful reading of our manuscript and for recognizing the importance of addressing university dropout among Indigenous students, a population that remains underrepresented in the higher education literature. We appreciate the constructive and detailed nature of the comments provided. In response, we have undertaken a substantial revision of the manuscript to improve its conceptual clarity, methodological rigor, transparency, and analytical depth. Specifically, we strengthened the Introduction to better justify the need for the review and clarify its original contribution; revised the Methods section to ensure full alignment with PRISMA 2020 standards; enhanced the Results section by adding a clear synthesis of the study selection process, study characteristics, and risk-of-bias findings; and refined the Discussion to explicitly articulate the contribution of this review to existing knowledge. We believe these revisions have significantly improved the overall quality, coherence, and scientific value of the manuscript. Comment 1: The introduction must be strengthened. While, as an expert in the field, I understand the importance of the topic and acknowledge that no previous studies have approached it with the same level of detail, the section must be restructured to clearly justify the need for this review. This implies reviewing in depth the content and scope of existing literature reviews on dropout in higher education and highlighting the original contribution of your work. In addition, the background should be expanded to include a definition of dropout, and a discussion on the specific problems it poses for Indigenous students, their families, higher education institutions, and the state itself. I also recommend including a clear research question, preferably structured using the PICO method or a similar framework. Currently, the absence of a clear research question makes it difficult to delineate the scope of the review. I suggest reviewing the following reference for guidance: Answer 1: Thank you for this important comment. The Introduction has been strengthened while preserving its original structure. We added a clearer operational definition of university dropout, explicitly addressing the heterogeneity of terms used in the literature. The background was expanded to more clearly situate this review within existing systematic reviews on higher education dropout, highlighting that prior syntheses largely focus on non-Indigenous populations and do not provide a global, Indigenous-centered analysis. We also expanded the discussion of the specific consequences of dropout for Indigenous students, their families, higher education institutions, and the state. Finally, the research question has been explicitly structured using a PICo framework (Population, Phenomenon of Interest, Context), clarifying the scope and methodological focus of the review. Comment 2: Regarding the methodology, although the PRISMA 2020 statement is mentioned, not all required elements are addressed and several present deficiencies. I elaborate on this below: Eligibility criteria: No criteria are provided concerning study design, methods, sample characteristics, etc. Information sources: While some databases are mentioned, the rationale for their selection is not explained. I recommend reconsidering the use of Latindex, as this database does not necessarily index peer-reviewed journals. Search strategy: The search strategy is flawed, as it does not include all the terms associated with the object of study. This seems to result from the absence of a well-defined research question. Terms such as: ("higher education" OR university OR college OR "tertiary education" OR Bachelor OR degree OR undergraduate) AND (drop?out OR "dropping out" OR desertion OR attrition OR withdrawal) AND (Indigenous OR “Aboriginal Peoples” OR “Native Peoples” OR “First Nations”) are not evident. I also recommend including Portuguese terms, as studies in this language might otherwise be excluded. Additionally, studies from the health field using "dropout" to refer to treatment non-completion should be excluded. Selection process: This needs to be described in more detail how many reviewers participated, how disagreements were resolved, and most importantly, the reasons for study exclusion. Data collection process: Although briefly described, it lacks the necessary depth. A matrix is mentioned, but the way variables were categorized is crucial and must be clarified. I suggest specifying the coding method used to build the categories found in the results section. Data items: Currently included under “data extraction,” but it should be presented as a separate section. Study risk of bias assessment: This key component is missing. I recommend the following reference: Synthesis methods: This section must be expanded to align with the results presented. Answer 2: Thank you for this detailed and constructive methodological feedback. The Methods section has been substantially revised to fully align with PRISMA 2020 requirements and to address each of the points raised. First, we clarified and expanded the eligibility criteria, explicitly specifying eligible study designs (qualitative, quantitative, and mixed-methods), methodological approaches, participant characteristics (Indigenous university students at undergraduate or postgraduate level), outcomes (dropout/attrition/non-completion), languages, and exclusion criteria. Second, the information sources section was revised to justify the selection of each database based on disciplinary coverage and relevance to education, social sciences, and Indigenous studies. Following the recommendation, Latindex was reconsidered and its results were screened with stricter criteria due to the presence of non–peer-reviewed content. Third, the search strategy was corrected and expanded to reflect a clearly defined research question. The revised strategy now includes comprehensive synonyms for higher education, dropout, and Indigenous populations, incorporates Portuguese terms to avoid language bias, and explicitly excludes health-related studies where “dropout” refers to treatment non-completion. Fourth, the selection process was described in greater detail, specifying the number of independent reviewers involved, the process for resolving disagreements, and the explicit reasons for exclusion at the full-text stage. Fifth, the data collection process was expanded to explain the structure of the extraction matrix and the inductive–deductive coding procedure used to categorize variables and derive the risk and protective factors reported in the Results. Sixth, data items were separated into their own subsection to clearly list all extracted variables, improving transparency and replicability. Seventh, a dedicated study risk-of-bias assessment subsection was added, applying an established tool for non-randomized and observational studies, as recommended. Finally, the synthesis methods section was expanded to clearly explain how quantitative data were descriptively synthesized and how qualitative findings were thematically integrated, ensuring consistency with the results presented. Overall, these revisions substantially strengthen the methodological rigor, transparency, and PRISMA 2020 compliance of the study. Comment 3: In the results section, a synthesis of the study selection process is missing i.e., how the final 21 studies were selected. While this is described in the methodology, it should be part of the results section. The characteristics of the selected studies and the risk of bias assessment results are also not detailed. A general synthesis of the studies is needed. One strength of the paper is the way information is presented in tables. However, the content in the tables and the text is often repetitive. I encourage the authors to avoid duplicating insights. The results section would benefit from not only presenting variables and qualitative explanations related to dropout but also supporting these findings with data drawn directly from the reviewed articles. The discussion is generally well written, but it lacks a clear statement on the contribution of this review to existing knowledge. Answer 3: Thank you for this insightful comment. We have revised both the Results and Discussion sections to address these concerns and improve clarity, synthesis, and contribution. First, a dedicated synthesis of the study selection process has been added at the beginning of the Results section. This paragraph summarizes how the initial records were reduced to the final 21 included studies, explicitly referring to the PRISMA flow diagram, thereby ensuring that the selection process is clearly reported not only in the Methods but also in the Results, as recommended. Second, we expanded the general synthesis of the included studies by explicitly summarizing their main characteristics (geographic distribution, study designs, institutional types, populations, and data sources) in the Results narrative, rather than relying solely on tables. In addition, the risk-of-bias assessment results are now explicitly summarized in the text, highlighting overall methodological quality and common limitations observed across studies. Third, to reduce redundancy, we revised the Results section to avoid repetition between tables and text. Tables are now used primarily to present detailed descriptive information, while the text focuses on synthesizing patterns, trends, and contrasts across studies, rather than restating tabulated data. Fourth, we strengthened the Results by explicitly supporting qualitative interpretations with quantitative evidence drawn from the reviewed articles. Where possible, proportions, ranges, and frequencies (e.g., prevalence of dropout, frequency of reported risk and protective factors) are now reported directly in the text to substantiate the synthesis. Finally, in response to the last point, we added a clear statement of the contribution of this review to the Discussion section. This paragraph explicitly explains how the review advances existing knowledge by providing the first global, Indigenous-centered synthesis of university dropout, integrating risk and protective factors across cultural, geographic, and institutional contexts, and identifying key evidence gaps to inform future research and policy. These revisions strengthen the Results and Discussion by improving transparency, analytical synthesis, and the articulation of the study’s original contribution. Competing Interests: no Close Report a concern COMMENT ON THIS REPORT Comments on this article Comments (0) Version 2 VERSION 2 PUBLISHED 02 Jul 2025 ADD YOUR COMMENT Comment keyboard_arrow_left keyboard_arrow_right Open Peer Review Reviewer Status info_outline Alongside their report, reviewers assign a status to the article: Approved The paper is scientifically sound in its current form and only minor, if any, improvements are suggested Approved with reservations A number of small changes, sometimes more significant revisions are required to address specific details and improve the papers academic merit. Not approved Fundamental flaws in the paper seriously undermine the findings and conclusions Reviewer Reports Invited Reviewers 1 2 Version 2 (revision) 12 Dec 25 read Version 1 02 Jul 25 read Alfredo Guzmán Rincón , Corporación Universitaria de Asturias, Bogotá, Colombia Dech-siri Nopas , Kasetsart University, Bangkok, Thailand Comments on this article All Comments (0) Add a comment Sign up for content alerts Sign Up You are now signed up to receive this alert Browse by related subjects keyboard_arrow_left Back to all reports Reviewer Report 0 Views copyright © 2026 Nopas D. This is an open access peer review report distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. The author(s) is/are employees of the US Government and therefore domestic copyright protection in USA does not apply to this work. The work may be protected under the copyright laws of other jurisdictions when used in those jurisdictions. 20 Jan 2026 | for Version 2 Dech-siri Nopas , Kasetsart University, Bangkok, Thailand 0 Views copyright © 2026 Nopas D. This is an open access peer review report distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. The author(s) is/are employees of the US Government and therefore domestic copyright protection in USA does not apply to this work. The work may be protected under the copyright laws of other jurisdictions when used in those jurisdictions. format_quote Cite this report speaker_notes Responses (0) Approved With Reservations info_outline Alongside their report, reviewers assign a status to the article: Approved The paper is scientifically sound in its current form and only minor, if any, improvements are suggested Approved with reservations A number of small changes, sometimes more significant revisions are required to address specific details and improve the papers academic merit. Not approved Fundamental flaws in the paper seriously undermine the findings and conclusions Thank you for the chance to review this systematic review. The topic is important, and the authors aim to address a meaningful gap by looking at university dropout among Indigenous students across different regions. I appreciate the effort to revise the manuscript after the previous review. However, even with these revisions, the paper still needs substantial improvement before it can be considered scientifically sound. Below is a summary of the paper, followed by specific comments linked to the questions in the review form. I aim to be honest and constructive so the authors can strengthen the work. The article presents a systematic review of factors associated with university dropout among Indigenous students worldwide. The authors searched three databases using multilingual terms (English, Spanish, Portuguese), identified 30 studies, extracted information on dropout factors, and categorized them into structural, academic, socio-economic, cultural, and institutional domains. The review concludes that Indigenous university students face multiple intertwined barriers and that targeted support systems are needed. The topic is highly relevant, and the intention is good. However, the execution of the systematic review still has major methodological and reporting issues. Major Comments 1. Rationale and objectives — Partly The authors explain the importance of the topic, but the objectives feel broad and not sharply defined. A systematic review must have clear, focused, operational objectives. Here, the aim is stated, but not in a way that guides a reproducible review. How to fix Clearly state specific review questions (e.g., “What factors contribute to dropout among Indigenous university students?”). Show how these questions guided the search, screening, and synthesis. Avoid mixing general background with the rationale—make the gap and purpose stand out more clearly. 2. Methods and reproducibility — No This is the biggest weakness of the paper. Even in the revised version, the methods section does not meet PRISMA expectations. Issues The search strategy is described generally but not detailed enough to replicate. The inclusion/exclusion criteria are too broad and sometimes vague. No description of who screened the studies, how disagreements were handled, or whether tools like Rayyan were used. The PRISMA flow diagram numbers do not fully align with the narrative explanation. The review calls itself “global,” but the search strategy naturally limits results almost fully to Latin America and Oceania. Risk of bias is mentioned but not shown—no table, no scoring, no explanation of how it influenced the synthesis. How to fix Provide the full search strings exactly as used. Describe the selection process clearly (number of reviewers, disagreements, tools used). Add a quality appraisal table showing risk-of-bias results for each study. Explain how risk-of-bias influenced the synthesis. Clarify the term “global” or adjust the title. These are essential for scientific validity. 3. Statistical analysis — Not applicable This review does not perform statistical pooling or meta-analysis. Acknowledging "not applicable" is appropriate. However, the authors should still strengthen their narrative synthesis to show patterns rather than repeating table content. 4. Results and analysis — Partly The authors provide detailed tables, which is a strong point. But the narrative results mainly repeat what is already shown in the tables. Issues Too descriptive; lacks synthesis. No comparison across regions, time periods, or characteristics. Some claims about dropout causes are made without referencing specific studies. No integration of risk-of-bias assessments (because this was not done clearly). How to fix Synthesize patterns (e.g., “Across Latin America, the most frequent factor was X, whereas in Oceania it was Y.”) Identify contradictions or gaps. Link findings directly to included studies. Integrate risk-of-bias into interpretation. 5. Conclusions — Partly supported The conclusions are reasonable, but they go beyond what the data actually supports. Some statements generalize Indigenous experiences in ways that are not backed by the included studies. How to fix Base all conclusions strictly on your extracted data. Avoid claims not directly supported by included studies. Clarify that conclusions reflect available research, not global Indigenous populations. Are the rationale for, and objectives of, the Systematic Review clearly stated? Partly Are sufficient details of the methods and analysis provided to allow replication by others? No Is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate? Not applicable Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results presented in the review? Partly If this is a Living Systematic Review, is the ‘living’ method appropriate and is the search schedule clearly defined and justified? (‘Living Systematic Review’ or a variation of this term should be included in the title.) Not applicable Competing Interests No competing interests were disclosed. Reviewer Expertise Lifelong Learning; Adult Education; Community Education; Educational Technology; AI in Education; Digital Pedagogy; Teacher Development I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard, however I have significant reservations, as outlined above. reply Respond to this report Responses (0) Nopas Ds. Peer Review Report For: University Dropout Among Indigenous University Students: A Global Systematic Review [version 2; peer review: 1 approved with reservations, 1 not approved] . F1000Research 2025, 14 :641 ( https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.191476.r447499) NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in this citation. The direct URL for this report is: https://f1000research.com/articles/14-641/v2#referee-response-447499 keyboard_arrow_left Back to all reports Reviewer Report 0 Views copyright © 2025 Guzmán Rincón A. This is an open access peer review report distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. 05 Nov 2025 | for Version 1 Alfredo Guzmán Rincón , Corporación Universitaria de Asturias, Bogotá, Bogota, Colombia 0 Views copyright © 2025 Guzmán Rincón A. This is an open access peer review report distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. format_quote Cite this report speaker_notes Responses (1) Not Approved info_outline Alongside their report, reviewers assign a status to the article: Approved The paper is scientifically sound in its current form and only minor, if any, improvements are suggested Approved with reservations A number of small changes, sometimes more significant revisions are required to address specific details and improve the papers academic merit. Not approved Fundamental flaws in the paper seriously undermine the findings and conclusions I have had the opportunity to carefully review your manuscript. First, I would like to congratulate you for addressing such an important topic as dropout among Indigenous students in higher education, a group that has been little studied in the literature. After thoroughly reading the manuscript, I believe it requires substantial improvement. Below, I outline each of my comments: The introduction must be strengthened. While, as an expert in the field, I understand the importance of the topic and acknowledge that no previous studies have approached it with the same level of detail, the section must be restructured to clearly justify the need for this review. This implies reviewing in depth the content and scope of existing literature reviews on dropout in higher education, and highlighting the original contribution of your work. In addition, the background should be expanded to include a definition of dropout, and a discussion on the specific problems it poses for Indigenous students, their families, higher education institutions, and the state itself. I also recommend including a clear research question, preferably structured using the PICO method or a similar framework. Currently, the absence of a clear research question makes it difficult to delineate the scope of the review. I suggest reviewing the following reference for guidance: [Reference 1] Regarding the methodology, although the PRISMA 2020 statement is mentioned, not all required elements are addressed and several present deficiencies. I elaborate on this below: Eligibility criteria: No criteria are provided concerning study design, methods, sample characteristics, etc. Information sources: While some databases are mentioned, the rationale for their selection is not explained. I recommend reconsidering the use of Latindex, as this database does not necessarily index peer-reviewed journals. Search strategy: The search strategy is flawed, as it does not include all the terms associated with the object of study. This seems to result from the absence of a well-defined research question. Terms such as: ("higher education" OR university OR college OR "tertiary education" OR Bachelor OR degree OR undergraduate) AND (drop?out OR "dropping out" OR desertion OR attrition OR withdrawal) AND (Indigenous OR “Aboriginal Peoples” OR “Native Peoples” OR “First Nations”) are not evident. I also recommend including Portuguese terms, as studies in this language might otherwise be excluded. Additionally, studies from the health field using "dropout" to refer to treatment non-completion should be excluded. Selection process: This needs to be described in more detail—how many reviewers participated, how disagreements were resolved, and most importantly, the reasons for study exclusion. Data collection process: Although briefly described, it lacks the necessary depth. A matrix is mentioned, but the way variables were categorized is crucial and must be clarified. I suggest specifying the coding method used to build the categories found in the results section. Data items: Currently included under “data extraction,” but it should be presented as a separate section. Study risk of bias assessment: This key component is missing. I recommend the following reference: [Reference 2] Synthesis methods: This section must be expanded to align with the results presented. In the results section, a synthesis of the study selection process is missing—i.e., how the final 21 studies were selected. While this is described in the methodology, it should be part of the results section. The characteristics of the selected studies and the risk of bias assessment results are also not detailed. A general synthesis of the studies is needed. One strength of the paper is the way information is presented in tables. However, the content in the tables and the text is often repetitive. I encourage the authors to avoid duplicating insights. The results section would benefit from not only presenting variables and qualitative explanations related to dropout, but also supporting these findings with data drawn directly from the reviewed articles. The discussion is generally well written, but it lacks a clear statement on the contribution of this review to existing knowledge. Are the rationale for, and objectives of, the Systematic Review clearly stated? No Are sufficient details of the methods and analysis provided to allow replication by others? No Is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate? Not applicable Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results presented in the review? Partly If this is a Living Systematic Review, is the ‘living’ method appropriate and is the search schedule clearly defined and justified? (‘Living Systematic Review’ or a variation of this term should be included in the title.) Not applicable References 1. Carrera-Rivera A, Ochoa W, Larrinaga F, Lasa G: How-to conduct a systematic literature review: A quick guide for computer science research. MethodsX . 2022; 9 . Publisher Full Text 2. Shaheen N, Shaheen A, Ramadan A, Hefnawy M, et al.: Appraising systematic reviews: a comprehensive guide to ensuring validity and reliability. Frontiers in Research Metrics and Analytics . 2023; 8 . Publisher Full Text Competing Interests No competing interests were disclosed. Reviewer Expertise Education, dropout in higher education, curriculum, rural studies. I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to state that I do not consider it to be of an acceptable scientific standard, for reasons outlined above. reply Respond to this report Responses (1) Author Response 20 Jan 2026 Raul Quincho Apumayta, Universidad Nacional de Huancavelica, Huancavelica, Peru General comment I have had the opportunity to carefully review your manuscript. First, I would like to congratulate you for addressing such an important topic as dropout among Indigenous students in higher education, a group that has been little studied in the literature. After thoroughly reading the manuscript, I believe it requires substantial improvement. Below, I outline each of my comments: Answer: We sincerely thank the reviewer for the careful reading of our manuscript and for recognizing the importance of addressing university dropout among Indigenous students, a population that remains underrepresented in the higher education literature. We appreciate the constructive and detailed nature of the comments provided. In response, we have undertaken a substantial revision of the manuscript to improve its conceptual clarity, methodological rigor, transparency, and analytical depth. Specifically, we strengthened the Introduction to better justify the need for the review and clarify its original contribution; revised the Methods section to ensure full alignment with PRISMA 2020 standards; enhanced the Results section by adding a clear synthesis of the study selection process, study characteristics, and risk-of-bias findings; and refined the Discussion to explicitly articulate the contribution of this review to existing knowledge. We believe these revisions have significantly improved the overall quality, coherence, and scientific value of the manuscript. Comment 1: The introduction must be strengthened. While, as an expert in the field, I understand the importance of the topic and acknowledge that no previous studies have approached it with the same level of detail, the section must be restructured to clearly justify the need for this review. This implies reviewing in depth the content and scope of existing literature reviews on dropout in higher education and highlighting the original contribution of your work. In addition, the background should be expanded to include a definition of dropout, and a discussion on the specific problems it poses for Indigenous students, their families, higher education institutions, and the state itself. I also recommend including a clear research question, preferably structured using the PICO method or a similar framework. Currently, the absence of a clear research question makes it difficult to delineate the scope of the review. I suggest reviewing the following reference for guidance: Answer 1: Thank you for this important comment. The Introduction has been strengthened while preserving its original structure. We added a clearer operational definition of university dropout, explicitly addressing the heterogeneity of terms used in the literature. The background was expanded to more clearly situate this review within existing systematic reviews on higher education dropout, highlighting that prior syntheses largely focus on non-Indigenous populations and do not provide a global, Indigenous-centered analysis. We also expanded the discussion of the specific consequences of dropout for Indigenous students, their families, higher education institutions, and the state. Finally, the research question has been explicitly structured using a PICo framework (Population, Phenomenon of Interest, Context), clarifying the scope and methodological focus of the review. Comment 2: Regarding the methodology, although the PRISMA 2020 statement is mentioned, not all required elements are addressed and several present deficiencies. I elaborate on this below: Eligibility criteria: No criteria are provided concerning study design, methods, sample characteristics, etc. Information sources: While some databases are mentioned, the rationale for their selection is not explained. I recommend reconsidering the use of Latindex, as this database does not necessarily index peer-reviewed journals. Search strategy: The search strategy is flawed, as it does not include all the terms associated with the object of study. This seems to result from the absence of a well-defined research question. Terms such as: ("higher education" OR university OR college OR "tertiary education" OR Bachelor OR degree OR undergraduate) AND (drop?out OR "dropping out" OR desertion OR attrition OR withdrawal) AND (Indigenous OR “Aboriginal Peoples” OR “Native Peoples” OR “First Nations”) are not evident. I also recommend including Portuguese terms, as studies in this language might otherwise be excluded. Additionally, studies from the health field using "dropout" to refer to treatment non-completion should be excluded. Selection process: This needs to be described in more detail how many reviewers participated, how disagreements were resolved, and most importantly, the reasons for study exclusion. Data collection process: Although briefly described, it lacks the necessary depth. A matrix is mentioned, but the way variables were categorized is crucial and must be clarified. I suggest specifying the coding method used to build the categories found in the results section. Data items: Currently included under “data extraction,” but it should be presented as a separate section. Study risk of bias assessment: This key component is missing. I recommend the following reference: Synthesis methods: This section must be expanded to align with the results presented. Answer 2: Thank you for this detailed and constructive methodological feedback. The Methods section has been substantially revised to fully align with PRISMA 2020 requirements and to address each of the points raised. First, we clarified and expanded the eligibility criteria, explicitly specifying eligible study designs (qualitative, quantitative, and mixed-methods), methodological approaches, participant characteristics (Indigenous university students at undergraduate or postgraduate level), outcomes (dropout/attrition/non-completion), languages, and exclusion criteria. Second, the information sources section was revised to justify the selection of each database based on disciplinary coverage and relevance to education, social sciences, and Indigenous studies. Following the recommendation, Latindex was reconsidered and its results were screened with stricter criteria due to the presence of non–peer-reviewed content. Third, the search strategy was corrected and expanded to reflect a clearly defined research question. The revised strategy now includes comprehensive synonyms for higher education, dropout, and Indigenous populations, incorporates Portuguese terms to avoid language bias, and explicitly excludes health-related studies where “dropout” refers to treatment non-completion. Fourth, the selection process was described in greater detail, specifying the number of independent reviewers involved, the process for resolving disagreements, and the explicit reasons for exclusion at the full-text stage. Fifth, the data collection process was expanded to explain the structure of the extraction matrix and the inductive–deductive coding procedure used to categorize variables and derive the risk and protective factors reported in the Results. Sixth, data items were separated into their own subsection to clearly list all extracted variables, improving transparency and replicability. Seventh, a dedicated study risk-of-bias assessment subsection was added, applying an established tool for non-randomized and observational studies, as recommended. Finally, the synthesis methods section was expanded to clearly explain how quantitative data were descriptively synthesized and how qualitative findings were thematically integrated, ensuring consistency with the results presented. Overall, these revisions substantially strengthen the methodological rigor, transparency, and PRISMA 2020 compliance of the study. Comment 3: In the results section, a synthesis of the study selection process is missing i.e., how the final 21 studies were selected. While this is described in the methodology, it should be part of the results section. The characteristics of the selected studies and the risk of bias assessment results are also not detailed. A general synthesis of the studies is needed. One strength of the paper is the way information is presented in tables. However, the content in the tables and the text is often repetitive. I encourage the authors to avoid duplicating insights. The results section would benefit from not only presenting variables and qualitative explanations related to dropout but also supporting these findings with data drawn directly from the reviewed articles. The discussion is generally well written, but it lacks a clear statement on the contribution of this review to existing knowledge. Answer 3: Thank you for this insightful comment. We have revised both the Results and Discussion sections to address these concerns and improve clarity, synthesis, and contribution. First, a dedicated synthesis of the study selection process has been added at the beginning of the Results section. This paragraph summarizes how the initial records were reduced to the final 21 included studies, explicitly referring to the PRISMA flow diagram, thereby ensuring that the selection process is clearly reported not only in the Methods but also in the Results, as recommended. Second, we expanded the general synthesis of the included studies by explicitly summarizing their main characteristics (geographic distribution, study designs, institutional types, populations, and data sources) in the Results narrative, rather than relying solely on tables. In addition, the risk-of-bias assessment results are now explicitly summarized in the text, highlighting overall methodological quality and common limitations observed across studies. Third, to reduce redundancy, we revised the Results section to avoid repetition between tables and text. Tables are now used primarily to present detailed descriptive information, while the text focuses on synthesizing patterns, trends, and contrasts across studies, rather than restating tabulated data. Fourth, we strengthened the Results by explicitly supporting qualitative interpretations with quantitative evidence drawn from the reviewed articles. Where possible, proportions, ranges, and frequencies (e.g., prevalence of dropout, frequency of reported risk and protective factors) are now reported directly in the text to substantiate the synthesis. Finally, in response to the last point, we added a clear statement of the contribution of this review to the Discussion section. This paragraph explicitly explains how the review advances existing knowledge by providing the first global, Indigenous-centered synthesis of university dropout, integrating risk and protective factors across cultural, geographic, and institutional contexts, and identifying key evidence gaps to inform future research and policy. These revisions strengthen the Results and Discussion by improving transparency, analytical synthesis, and the articulation of the study’s original contribution. View more View less Competing Interests no reply Respond Report a concern Guzmán Rincón A. Peer Review Report For: University Dropout Among Indigenous University Students: A Global Systematic Review [version 2; peer review: 1 approved with reservations, 1 not approved] . F1000Research 2025, 14 :641 ( https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.178718.r398084) NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in this citation. The direct URL for this report is: https://f1000research.com/articles/14-641/v1#referee-response-398084 Alongside their report, reviewers assign a status to the article: Approved - the paper is scientifically sound in its current form and only minor, if any, improvements are suggested Approved with reservations - A number of small changes, sometimes more significant revisions are required to address specific details and improve the papers academic merit. Not approved - fundamental flaws in the paper seriously undermine the findings and conclusions Adjust parameters to alter display View on desktop for interactive features Includes Interactive Elements View on desktop for interactive features Competing Interests Policy Provide sufficient details of any financial or non-financial competing interests to enable users to assess whether your comments might lead a reasonable person to question your impartiality. Consider the following examples, but note that this is not an exhaustive list: Examples of 'Non-Financial Competing Interests' Within the past 4 years, you have held joint grants, published or collaborated with any of the authors of the selected paper. You have a close personal relationship (e.g. parent, spouse, sibling, or domestic partner) with any of the authors. You are a close professional associate of any of the authors (e.g. scientific mentor, recent student). You work at the same institute as any of the authors. You hope/expect to benefit (e.g. favour or employment) as a result of your submission. You are an Editor for the journal in which the article is published. Examples of 'Financial Competing Interests' You expect to receive, or in the past 4 years have received, any of the following from any commercial organisation that may gain financially from your submission: a salary, fees, funding, reimbursements. You expect to receive, or in the past 4 years have received, shared grant support or other funding with any of the authors. You hold, or are currently applying for, any patents or significant stocks/shares relating to the subject matter of the paper you are commenting on. Stay Updated Sign up for content alerts and receive a weekly or monthly email with all newly published articles Register with F1000Research Already registered? Sign in Not now, thanks close PLEASE NOTE If you are an AUTHOR of this article, please check that you signed in with the account associated with this article otherwise we cannot automatically identify your role as an author and your comment will be labelled as a “User Comment”. If you are a REVIEWER of this article, please check that you have signed in with the account associated with this article and then go to your account to submit your report, please do not post your review here. If you do not have access to your original account, please contact us . All commenters must hold a formal affiliation as per our Policies . The information that you give us will be displayed next to your comment. User comments must be in English, comprehensible and relevant to the article under discussion. We reserve the right to remove any comments that we consider to be inappropriate, offensive or otherwise in breach of the User Comment Terms and Conditions . Commenters must not use a comment for personal attacks. When criticisms of the article are based on unpublished data, the data should be made available. I accept the User Comment Terms and Conditions Please confirm that you accept the User Comment Terms and Conditions. Affiliation ✕ refresh Please enter your institution. Note: To add your institution or organisation, start typing the name and then select the correct name from the list. Where applicable, the name will appear in both the original language and in English. Do not paste in the name. If the name does not appear in the drop-down list, we will display the information you have entered. ✕ refresh Country/Region * USA UK Canada China France Germany Afghanistan Aland Islands Albania Algeria American Samoa Andorra Angola Anguilla Antarctica Antigua and Barbuda Argentina Armenia Aruba Australia Austria Azerbaijan Bahamas Bahrain Bangladesh Barbados Belarus Belgium Belize Benin Bermuda Bhutan Bolivia Bosnia and Herzegovina Botswana Bouvet Island Brazil British Indian Ocean Territory British Virgin Islands Brunei Bulgaria Burkina Faso Burundi Cambodia Cameroon Canada Cape Verde Cayman Islands Central African Republic Chad Chile China Christmas Island Cocos (Keeling) Islands Colombia Comoros Congo Cook Islands Costa Rica Cote d'Ivoire Croatia Cuba Cyprus Czech Republic Democratic Republic of the Congo Denmark Djibouti Dominica Dominican Republic Ecuador Egypt El Salvador Equatorial Guinea Eritrea Estonia Ethiopia Falkland Islands Faroe Islands Federated States of Micronesia Fiji Finland France French Guiana French Polynesia French Southern Territories Gabon Georgia Germany Ghana Gibraltar Greece Greenland Grenada Guadeloupe Guam Guatemala Guernsey Guinea Guinea-Bissau Guyana Haiti Heard Island and Mcdonald Islands Holy See (Vatican City State) Honduras Hong Kong Hungary Iceland India Indonesia Iran Iraq Ireland Israel Italy Jamaica Japan Jersey Jordan Kazakhstan Kenya Kiribati Kosovo (Serbia and Montenegro) Kuwait Kyrgyzstan Lao People's Democratic Republic Latvia Lebanon Lesotho Liberia Libya Liechtenstein Lithuania Luxembourg Macao Madagascar Malawi Malaysia Maldives Mali Malta Marshall Islands Martinique Mauritania Mauritius Mayotte Mexico Minor Outlying Islands of the United States Moldova Monaco Mongolia Montenegro Montserrat Morocco Mozambique Myanmar Namibia Nauru Nepal Netherlands Antilles New Caledonia New Zealand Nicaragua Niger Nigeria Niue Norfolk Island North Korea North Macedonia Northern Mariana Islands Norway Oman Pakistan Palau Palestinian Territory Panama Papua New Guinea Paraguay Peru Philippines Pitcairn Poland Portugal Puerto Rico Qatar Reunion Romania Russian Federation Rwanda Saint Helena Saint Kitts and Nevis Saint Lucia Saint Pierre and Miquelon Saint Vincent and the Grenadines Samoa San Marino Sao Tome and Principe Saudi Arabia Senegal Serbia Seychelles Sierra Leone Singapore Slovakia Slovenia Solomon Islands Somalia South Africa South Georgia and the South Sandwich Is South Korea South Sudan Spain Sri Lanka Sudan Suriname Svalbard and Jan Mayen Swaziland Sweden Switzerland Syria Taiwan Tajikistan Tanzania Thailand The Gambia The Netherlands Timor-Leste Togo Tokelau Tonga Trinidad and Tobago Tunisia Turkey Turkmenistan Turks and Caicos Islands Tuvalu UK USA Uganda Ukraine United Arab Emirates United States Virgin Islands Uruguay Uzbekistan Vanuatu Venezuela Vietnam Wallis and Futuna West Bank and Gaza Strip Western Sahara Yemen Zambia Zimbabwe Please select your country/region. You must enter a comment. Competing Interests Please disclose any competing interests that might be construed to influence your judgment of the article's or peer review report's validity or importance. Competing Interests Policy Provide sufficient details of any financial or non-financial competing interests to enable users to assess whether your comments might lead a reasonable person to question your impartiality. Consider the following examples, but note that this is not an exhaustive list: Examples of 'Non-Financial Competing Interests' Within the past 4 years, you have held joint grants, published or collaborated with any of the authors of the selected paper. You have a close personal relationship (e.g. parent, spouse, sibling, or domestic partner) with any of the authors. You are a close professional associate of any of the authors (e.g. scientific mentor, recent student). You work at the same institute as any of the authors. You hope/expect to benefit (e.g. favour or employment) as a result of your submission. You are an Editor for the journal in which the article is published. Examples of 'Financial Competing Interests' You expect to receive, or in the past 4 years have received, any of the following from any commercial organisation that may gain financially from your submission: a salary, fees, funding, reimbursements. You expect to receive, or in the past 4 years have received, shared grant support or other funding with any of the authors. You hold, or are currently applying for, any patents or significant stocks/shares relating to the subject matter of the paper you are commenting on. Please state your competing interests The comment has been saved. An error has occurred. Please try again. Cancel Post var lTitle = "University Dropout Among Indigenous University...".replace("'", ''); var linkedInUrl = "http://www.linkedin.com/shareArticle?url=https://f1000research.com/articles/14-641/v2" + "&title=" + encodeURIComponent(lTitle) + "&summary=" + encodeURIComponent('Read the article by '); var deliciousUrl = "https://del.icio.us/post?url=https://f1000research.com/articles/14-641/v2&title=" + encodeURIComponent(lTitle); var redditUrl = "http://reddit.com/submit?url=https://f1000research.com/articles/14-641/v2" + "&title=" + encodeURIComponent(lTitle); linkedInUrl += encodeURIComponent('Quincho-Apumayta R et al.'); var offsetTop = /chrome/i.test( navigator.userAgent ) ? 4 : -10; var addthis_config = { ui_offset_top: offsetTop, services_compact : "facebook,twitter,www.linkedin.com,www.mendeley.com,reddit.com", services_expanded : "facebook,twitter,www.linkedin.com,www.mendeley.com,reddit.com", services_custom : [ { name: "LinkedIn", url: linkedInUrl, icon:"/img/icon/at_linkedin.svg" }, { name: "Mendeley", url: "http://www.mendeley.com/import/?url=https://f1000research.com/articles/14-641/v2/mendeley", icon:"/img/icon/at_mendeley.svg" }, { name: "Reddit", url: redditUrl, icon:"/img/icon/at_reddit.svg" }, ] }; var addthis_share = { url: "https://f1000research.com/articles/14-641", templates : { twitter : "University Dropout Among Indigenous University Students: A Global.... Quincho-Apumayta R et al., published by " + "@F1000Research" + ", https://f1000research.com/articles/14-641/v2" } }; if (typeof(addthis) != "undefined"){ addthis.addEventListener('addthis.ready', checkCount); addthis.addEventListener('addthis.menu.share', checkCount); } $(".f1r-shares-twitter").attr("href", "https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?text=" + addthis_share.templates.twitter); $(".f1r-shares-facebook").attr("href", "https://www.facebook.com/sharer/sharer.php?u=" + addthis_share.url); $(".f1r-shares-linkedin").attr("href", addthis_config.services_custom[0].url); $(".f1r-shares-reddit").attr("href", addthis_config.services_custom[2].url); $(".f1r-shares-mendelay").attr("href", addthis_config.services_custom[1].url); function checkCount(){ setTimeout(function(){ $(".addthis_button_expanded").each(function(){ var count = $(this).text(); if (count !== "" && count != "0") $(this).removeClass("is-hidden"); else $(this).addClass("is-hidden"); }); }, 1000); } close How to cite this report {{reportCitation}} Cancel Copy Citation Details $(function(){R.ui.buttonDropdowns('.dropdown-for-downloads');}); $(function(){R.ui.toolbarDropdowns('.toolbar-dropdown-for-downloads');}); $.get("/articles/acj/162508/191476") new F1000.Clipboard(); new F1000.ThesaurusTermsDisplay("articles", "article", "191476"); $(document).ready(function() { $( "#frame1" ).on('load', function() { var mydiv = $(this).contents().find("div"); var h = mydiv.height(); console.log(h) }); var tooltipLivingFigure = jQuery(".interactive-living-figure-label .icon-more-info"), titleLivingFigure = tooltipLivingFigure.attr("title"); tooltipLivingFigure.simpletip({ fixed: true, position: ["-115", "30"], baseClass: 'small-tooltip', content:titleLivingFigure + " " }); tooltipLivingFigure.removeAttr("title"); $("body").on("click", ".cite-living-figure", function(e) { e.preventDefault(); var ref = $(this).attr("data-ref"); $(this).closest(".living-figure-list-container").find("#" + ref).fadeIn(200); }); $("body").on("click", ".close-cite-living-figure", function(e) { e.preventDefault(); $(this).closest(".popup-window-wrapper").fadeOut(200); }); $(document).on("mouseup", function(e) { var metricsContainer = $(".article-metrics-popover-wrapper"); if (!metricsContainer.is(e.target) && metricsContainer.has(e.target).length === 0) { $(".article-metrics-close-button").click(); } }); var articleId = $('#articleId').val(); if($("#main-article-count-box").attachArticleMetrics) { $("#main-article-count-box").attachArticleMetrics(articleId, { articleMetricsView: true }); } }); var figshareWidget = $(".new_figshare_widget"); if (figshareWidget.length > 0) { window.figshare.load("f1000", function(Widget) { // Select a tag/tags defined in your page. In this tag we will place the widget. _.map(figshareWidget, function(el){ var widget = new Widget({ articleId: $(el).attr("figshare_articleId") //height:300 // this is the height of the viewer part. [Default: 550] }); widget.initialize(); // initialize the widget widget.mount(el); // mount it in a tag that's on your page // this will save the widget on the global scope for later use from // your JS scripts. This line is optional. //window.widget = widget; }); }); } close Error Close Add Reset F1000.MICROSERVICES.AFFILIATION = ''; $(document).ready(function () { $('.js-affiliations-form').each((index, form) => { new AffiliationForm({ formId: form.id, institutionErrorSelector: '.comment-enter-institution', departmentErrorSelector: '.comment-enter-department', placeSelector: '.js-add-comment-place', stateSelector: '.js-add-comment-state', zipCodeSelector: '.js-add-comment-zipcode', countrySelector: '.js-add-comment-country', countryErrorSelector: '.comment-enter-country', }); }); }); $(document).ready(function () { var reportIds = { "443142": 0, "398086": 0, "443143": 0, "398087": 0, "443140": 0, "398084": 34, "443141": 0, "398085": 0, "443138": 0, "398082": 0, "443139": 0, "398083": 0, "443137": 0, "447502": 0, "447503": 0, "447500": 0, "447501": 0, "447498": 0, "443146": 0, "398090": 0, "447499": 9, "398091": 0, "447496": 0, "443144": 0, "398088": 0, "447497": 0, "443145": 0, "398089": 0, "445718": 0, "445719": 0, "445716": 0, "445717": 0, "445715": 0, "447504": 0, "447505": 0, "445713": 0, "445722": 0, "445723": 0, "445720": 0, "445721": 0, "420678": 0, "420679": 0, "420676": 0, "420677": 0, "420684": 0, "420685": 0, "420682": 0, "420683": 0, "420680": 0, "420681": 0, "424030": 0, "424031": 0, "424028": 0, "424029": 0, "424026": 0, "424027": 0, "424024": 0, "424025": 0, "424032": 0, "424033": 0, "440943": 0, "441478": 0, "414598": 0, "425862": 0, "441479": 0, "414599": 0, "425863": 0, "441476": 0, "414596": 0, "425860": 0, "441477": 0, "414597": 0, "425861": 0, "425858": 0, "425859": 0, "425856": 0, "425857": 0, "441484": 0, "414604": 0, "441485": 0, "414605": 0, "441482": 0, "414602": 0, "441483": 0, "414603": 0, "441480": 0, "414600": 0, "425864": 0, "441481": 0, "414601": 0, "425865": 0, "451538": 0, "417511": 0, "417518": 0, "417519": 0, "417516": 0, "417517": 0, "417514": 0, "417515": 0, "417512": 0, "417513": 0, "417520": 0, }; $(".referee-response-container,.js-referee-report").each(function(index, el) { var reportId = $(el).attr("data-reportid"), reportCount = reportIds[reportId] || 0; $(el).find(".comments-count-container,.js-referee-report-views").html(reportCount); }); var uuidInput = $("#article_uuid"), oldUUId = uuidInput.val(), newUUId = "458c7265-daa2-4e08-bee7-a4a6148d8a94"; uuidInput.val(newUUId); $("a[href*='article_uuid=']").each(function(index, el) { var newHref = $(el).attr("href").replace(oldUUId, newUUId); $(el).attr("href", newHref); }); }); An innovative open access publishing platform offering rapid publication and open peer review, whilst supporting data deposition and sharing. Browse Gateways Collections How it Works Contact For Developers Cookie Notice Privacy Notice RSS Submit Your Research Follow us © 2012-2026 F1000 Research Ltd. ISSN 2046-1402 | Legal | Partner of Research4Life • CrossRef • ORCID • FAIRSharing R.templateTests.simpleTemplate = R.template(' $text $text $text $text $text '); R.templateTests.runTests(); var F1000platform = new F1000.Platform({ name: "f1000research", displayName: "F1000Research", hostName: "f1000research.com", id: "1", editorialEmail: "[email protected]", infoEmail: "[email protected]", usePmcStats: true }); $(function(){R.ui.dropdowns('.dropdown-for-authors, .dropdown-for-about, .dropdown-for-myresearch');}); // $(function(){R.ui.dropdowns('.dropdown-for-referees');}); $(document).ready(function () { if ($(".cookie-warning").is(":visible")) { $(".sticky").css("margin-bottom", "35px"); $(".devices").addClass("devices-and-cookie-warning"); } $(".cookie-warning .close-button").click(function (e) { $(".devices").removeClass("devices-and-cookie-warning"); $(".sticky").css("margin-bottom", "0"); }); $("#tweeter-feed .tweet-message").each(function (i, message) { var self = $(message); self.html(linkify(self.html())); }); $(".partner").on("mouseenter mouseleave", function() { $(this).find(".gray-scale, .colour").toggleClass("is-hidden"); }); }); Sign In Remember me Forgotten your password? Sign In Cancel Email or password not correct. Please try again Please wait... $(function(){ // Note: All the setup needs to run against a name attribute and *not* the id due the clonish // nature of facebox... $("a[id=googleSignInButton]").click(function(event){ event.preventDefault(); $("input[id=oAuthSystem]").val("GOOGLE"); $("form[id=oAuthForm]").submit(); }); $("a[id=facebookSignInButton]").click(function(event){ event.preventDefault(); $("input[id=oAuthSystem]").val("FACEBOOK"); $("form[id=oAuthForm]").submit(); }); $("a[id=orcidSignInButton]").click(function(event){ event.preventDefault(); $("input[id=oAuthSystem]").val("ORCID"); $("form[id=oAuthForm]").submit(); }); }); If you've forgotten your password, please enter your email address below and we'll send you instructions on how to reset your password. The email address should be the one you originally registered with F1000. Email address not valid, please try again You registered with F1000 via Google, so we cannot reset your password. To sign in, please click here . If you still need help with your Google account password, please click here . You registered with F1000 via Facebook, so we cannot reset your password. To sign in, please click here . If you still need help with your Facebook account password, please click here . Code not correct, please try again Reset password Cancel Email us for further assistance. Server error, please try again. If your email address is registered with us, we will email you instructions to reset your password. If you think you should have received this email but it has not arrived, please check your spam filters and/or contact for further assistance. Please wait... Register $(document).ready(function () { signIn.createSignInAsRow($("#sign-in-form-gfb-popup")); $(".target-field").each(function () { var uris = $(this).val().split("/"); if (uris.pop() === "login") { $(this).val(uris.toString().replace(",","/")); } }); });