Engaging with Indigenous Australian communities for a human papilloma virus and oropharyngeal cancer project; use of the CONSIDER statement

A protocol for stakeholder engagement in head and neck cancer pragmatic trials

Meaningful engagement with stakeholders in research demands intentional approaches. This paper describes the development of a framework to guide stakeholder engagement as research partners in a pragmatic trial proposed to evaluate behavioral interventions for dysphagia in head and neck cancer patients. We highlight the core principles of stakeholder engagement including representation of all perspectives, meaningful participation, respectful partnership with stakeholders, and accountability to stakeholders; and describe how these principles were operationalized to engage relevant stakeholders throughout the course of a large clinical trial.

Reflecting on the quality of a methodologically pluralist evaluation of a large-scale Indigenous health research collaboration in Australia

BACKGROUND

Indigenous communities worldwide lead calls for all evaluations of research, programmes and policies affecting their communities to reflect the values, priorities and perspectives of the Indigenous peoples and communities involved. Tools, such as the Quality Appraisal Tool (QAT), are available to assess research quality through an Indigenous cultural lens. Good evaluation requires that evaluation efforts be evaluated. We found that critical reflection on the quality of evaluations from an Indigenous perspective is largely absent from the published literature. To ensure that we strive for quality in evaluation as determined by Indigenous people with whom we work, we examined the quality of our own evaluation of an Indigenous health research collaboration by conducting a reflexive dialogue.

METHODS

The QAT was used to assess our evaluation according to Indigenous health research principles. Our qualitative study used analytical coautoethnography to generate data through a series of reflexive dialogue sessions with Indigenous and non-Indigenous members of the research collaboration, using the QAT criteria as discussion prompts. Our ideas and reflections were compared and contrasted through a collaborative and iterative writing process, multiple review cycles and discussions.

RESULTS

We documented our findings against the QAT framework. We found examples that each QAT principle had, to some extent, been adhered to, but constantly needed to assess whether the principles were fully achieved to our satisfaction. Strengths of the evaluation included being adaptable and responsive to emerging issues for the research collaboration, while areas for improvement included more Indigenous leadership of, and involvement in, evaluation.

CONCLUSIONS

Although reflexive evaluation practice is not always comfortable, it does provide an opportunity to generate insights for improvement. Reflecting as we did-in a partnership between Indigenous and non-Indigenous colleagues-enabled deeper insights and meaning. We anticipate that our process models how other research in Indigenous contexts might better advance ethical, quality Indigenous research through working in collaboration with Indigenous researchers and communities.

Use of the CONSIDER statement by eye health researchers when conducting and reporting research involving Indigenous peoples: an online survey

BACKGROUND

Indigenous peoples experience worse eye health compared to non-Indigenous peoples. Service providers and researchers must avoid perpetuating this inequity. To help achieve this, researchers can use the CONSolIDated critERia for strengthening the reporting of health research involving Indigenous peoples (CONSIDER) statement. This study aimed to identify the degree to which the CONSIDER statement has been used by eye health researchers when conducting and reporting research with an Indigenous component, and how they perceive its relevance in their future research.

METHODS

We used purposive sampling to recruit eye health researchers from any country who have undertaken research with an Indigenous component. The online survey collected quantitative and qualitative data and was analysed using descriptive statistics and reflexive thematic analysis. Responses were gathered on a four-point Likert scale (1 to 4), with four being the most positive statement.

RESULTS

Thirty-nine eye health researchers from nine countries completed the survey (Aotearoa New Zealand, Argentina, Australia, Brazil, Canada, Colombia, Guatemala, Panama, Peru); almost two-thirds (n = 24) undertake epidemiological research. On average, participants disclosed only 'sometimes' previously reporting CONSIDER items (2.26 ± 1.14), but they thought the items were relevant to eye health research and were motivated to use these guidelines in their future research. Some participants requested clarity about how CONSIDER aligned with existing guidelines, and when and how to apply the statement. Others shared rich experiences of the benefits to their research of Indigenous leadership and collaboration.

CONCLUSIONS

The CONSIDER statement is perceived as a valuable tool by these eye health researchers, and there are opportunities to maximise uptake and use, including increasing awareness of the statement, clarity about when it applies, and availability of institutional-level support.

Trusting relationships and learning together: A rapid review of Indigenous reference groups in Australian Indigenous health research

OBJECTIVE

This rapid review aims to identify how Indigenous research governance is conceptualised, implemented and documented within Australian Indigenous health research studies.

METHODS

We searched for peer-reviewed English-language articles in two databases and for web-based grey literature published from database inception to November 2021. Reference lists were searched to identify additional articles. Data relating to research governance were extracted and analysed thematically.

RESULTS

A total of 1120 records were screened, and 27 articles were included. Most articles providing detailed description of Indigenous research governance activities were qualitative studies (n=15, 55.6%). Key themes included members are experts; respectful relationships; flexibility; and key logistic considerations (nuts 'n' bolts).

CONCLUSIONS

Although Indigenous research governance is recognised as an essential part of ethical research, activities and contributions made by Indigenous reference group (IRG) members are underreported. This important work needs greater visibility in the published literature to share best practice in Indigenous research governance that foregrounds Indigenous expert knowledge, perspectives, and experiences.

IMPLICATIONS FOR PUBLIC HEALTH

The study provides a synthesis of factors to consider when establishing and facilitating an IRG for research with Indigenous communities. This has implications for researchers who can adapt and apply the findings to their practice.

Appraising community driven health research with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities: a scoping review using the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Quality Appraisal Tool

Most research involving Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples has been conducted by non-Indigenous people and has not been a positive experience for many Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities. This scoping review maps approaches to health research involving Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples and communities in Australia from the last two decades. A literature search found 198 papers, of which 34 studies met the inclusion criteria. The Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Quality Appraisal Tool was then used to map the quality of the reported community driven research. The Quality Appraisal Tool privileges, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people's epistemologies and ethical research governance. The findings reported on strengths and identified areas for improvement in reporting community driven research.

Laying the foundations of community engagement in Aboriginal health research: establishing a community reference group and terms of reference in a novel research field

BACKGROUND

Community engagement or community involvement in Aboriginal health research is a process that involves partnering, collaborating and involving Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people or potential research participants to empower them to have a say in how research with Aboriginal communities is conducted. In the context of Aboriginal health, this is particularly important so that researchers can respond to the priorities of the community under study and conduct research in a way that is respectful of Aboriginal cultural values and beliefs. One approach to incorporating the principals of community engagement and to ensure cultural oversight and guidance to projects is to engage a community reference group. The aim of this study was to describe the process of establishing an Aboriginal community reference group and terms of reference. The community reference group was established to guide the research activities of a newly formed research collaboration aiming to to develop osteoarthritis care that meets the needs of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people in Australia.

METHODS

Adopting a Participatory Action Research approach, this two-phase study was conducted in Victoria, Australia. In phase one, semi-structured research yarns (a cultural form of conversation used as a data gathering tool) were conducted collaboratively by Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal co-investigators to explore Aboriginal health stakeholder perspectives on establishing a community reference group and terms of reference. In phase two, recommendations in phase one were identified to invite members to participate in the community reference group and to ratify the terms of reference through a focus group. Data were analyzed using a framework analysis approach.

RESULTS

Thirteen people (eight female, four male) participated in phase one. Participants represented diverse professional backgrounds including physiotherapy, nursing, general practice, health services management, hospital liaison, cultural safety education, health research and the arts. Three themes were identified in phase one; Recruitment and Representation (trust and relationships, in-house call-outs, broad-spectrum expertise and Aboriginal majority); Purpose (community engagement, research steering, knowledge dissemination and advocacy) and; Function and Logistics (frequency and format of meetings, size of group, roles and responsibilities, authority, communication and dissemination). In phase two, six Aboriginal people were invited to become members of the community reference group who recommended changes which were incorporated into the seven domains of the terms of reference.

CONCLUSION

The findings of this study are captured in a 10-step framework which describes practical strategies for establishing a community reference group and terms of reference in Aboriginal health research.

Community engagement approaches for Indigenous health research: recommendations based on an integrative review

OBJECTIVE

Community engagement practices in Indigenous health research are promoted as a means of decolonising research, but there is no comprehensive synthesis of approaches in the literature. Our aim was to assemble and qualitatively synthesise a comprehensive list of actionable recommendations to enhance community engagement practices with Indigenous peoples in Canada, the USA, Australia and New Zealand.

DESIGN

Integrative review of the literature in medical (Medline, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature and Embase) and Google and WHO databases (search cut-off date 21 July 2020).

ARTICLE SELECTION

Studies that contained details regarding Indigenous community engagement frameworks, principles or practices in the field of health were included, with exclusion of non-English publications. Two reviewers independently screened the articles in duplicate and reviewed full-text articles.

ANALYSIS

Recommendations for community engagement approaches were extracted and thematically synthesised through content analysis.

RESULTS

A total of 63 studies were included in the review, with 1345 individual recommendations extracted. These were synthesised into a list of 37 recommendations for community engagement approaches in Indigenous health research, categorised by stage of research. In addition, activities applicable to all phases of research were identified: partnership and trust building and active reflection.

CONCLUSIONS

We provide a comprehensive list of recommendations for Indigenous community engagement approaches in health research. A limitation of this review is that it may not address all aspects applicable to specific Indigenous community settings and contexts. We encourage anyone who does research with Indigenous communities to reflect on their practices, encouraging changes in research processes that are strengths based.

'There's a Wall There-And That Wall Is Higher from Our Side': Drawing on Qualitative Interviews to Improve Indigenous Australians' Experiences of Dental Health Services

Indigenous Australians experience high levels of untreated dental disease compared to non-Indigenous Australians. We sought to gain insight into barriers that prevent Indigenous Australians from seeking timely and preventive dental care. A qualitative study design was implemented, using face-to-face interviews conducted December 2019 to February 2020. Participants were 20 Indigenous Australians (10 women and 10 men) representing six South Australian Indigenous groups; Ngarrindjeri, Narungga, Kaurna, Ngadjuri, Wiramu, and Adnyamathanha. Age range was middle-aged to elderly. The setting was participants' homes or workplaces. The main outcome measures were barriers and enablers to accessing timely and appropriate dental care. The findings were broadly grouped into eight domains: (1) fear of dentists; (2) confusion regarding availability of dental services; (3) difficulties making dental appointments; (4) waiting times; (5) attitudes and empathy of dental health service staff; (6) cultural friendliness of dental health service space; (7) availability of public transport and parking costs; and (8) ease of access to dental clinic. The findings indicate that many of the barriers to Indigenous people accessing timely and appropriate dental care may be easily remedied. Cultural competency training enables barriers to timely access and provision of dental care to Indigenous Australians to be addressed. The findings provide important context to better enable health providers and policy makers to put in place appropriate measures to improve Indigenous people's oral health, and the Indigenous oral health workforce in Australia.