Participatory research with a rural Aboriginal Community Controlled Health Organisation: lessons learned using the CONSIDER statement.

CONTEXT: In Australia, Aboriginal Community Controlled Health Organisations (ACCHOs) are geographically proximal to where Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander People reside and are valued for providing holistic and culturally safe primary health care. Partnering with ACCHOs in research is appropriate for redressing health inequities experienced by Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander People, which includes a high burden of chronic disease. Historically, some approaches to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander health research have been unethical. Greater accountability in the research process, transparency in reporting, and use of culturally appropriate research methodologies are key recommendations to improving the ethical integrity of research. The need for strengthening the reporting of health research involving Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander People and Indigenous peoples globally led to the development of the CONSolIDated critERia for strengthening the reporting of health research involving Indigenous peoples (CONSIDER statement), which is a synthesis of international ethical guidelines. This project report uses the CONSIDER statement to critically reflect on participatory research undertaken in partnership with an ACCHO in the rural context and to identify lessons of value for future research. ISSUE: By using the CONSIDER statement as a tool for critical reflection, it was identified that processes used to establish a research partnership with an ACCHO were key to setting the research agenda, including identifying ethical issues, the needs of local Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander People, and expectations from the research. The participation of Aboriginal community members throughout the entire research process was not only methodologically important but was also ethically appropriate. Research activities in this project included opportunities for Aboriginal community members to directly share their perspectives and experiences and develop local solutions to issues affecting them. Outcomes included evidence to support future funding applications, community-derived priorities that assisted with government reporting, and locally identified methods for addressing chronic disease management. Key to this was building the research capacity and capability of local Aboriginal community members, which also reflected the ethical principles of reciprocity and equity. This also provided opportunities for non-Indigenous researchers to learn from local Aboriginal community members and develop skills in culturally appropriate research. LESSONS LEARNED: Using the CONSIDER statement was beneficial in enabling researchers to critically reflect on a participatory research project undertaken in partnership with a rural ACCHO. Researchers identified that participatory approaches can be used to generate research of relevance to local Aboriginal community members and their ACCHOs, and to support health service reporting, and future funding applications. Research timelines and activities needed to be flexible and adaptable, to allow for staff turnover and unforeseen events of cultural significance. Similarly, it is important for researchers to be receptive to change and open to learning. Although research partnerships are established on trust and mutual respect, it is recommended that greater formal provisions are required to protect the intellectual property of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities involved in research. These lessons are likely to be transferrable to other settings and are of value to researchers seeking to partner with ACCHOs in research.

Mobile primary health care clinics for Indigenous populations in Australia, Canada, New Zealand and the United States: a systematic scoping review.

BACKGROUND: Mobile clinics have been used to deliver primary health care to populations that otherwise experience difficulty in accessing services. Indigenous populations in Australia, Canada, New Zealand, and the United States experience greater health inequities than non-Indigenous populations. There is increasing support for Indigenous-governed and culturally accessible primary health care services which meet the needs of Indigenous populations. There is some support for primary health care mobile clinics implemented specifically for Indigenous populations to improve health service accessibility. The purpose of this review is to scope the literature for evidence of mobile primary health care clinics implemented specifically for Indigenous populations in Australia, Canada, New Zealand, and the United States. METHODS: This review was undertaken using the Joanna Brigg Institute (JBI) scoping review methodology. Review objectives, inclusion criteria and methods were specified in advance and documented in a published protocol. The search included five academic databases and an extensive search of the grey literature. RESULTS: The search resulted in 1350 unique citations, with 91 of these citations retrieved from the grey literature and targeted organisational websites. Title, abstract and full-text screening was conducted independently by two reviewers, with 123 citations undergoing full text review. Of these, 39 citations discussing 25 mobile clinics, met the inclusion criteria. An additional 14 citations were snowballed from a review of the reference lists of included citations. Of these 25 mobile clinics, the majority were implemented in Australia (n = 14), followed by United States (n = 6) and Canada (n = 5). No primary health mobile clinics specifically for Indigenous people in New Zealand were retrieved. There was a pattern of declining locations serviced by mobile clinics with an increasing population. Furthermore, only 13 mobile clinics had some form of evaluation. CONCLUSIONS: This review identifies geographical gaps in the implementation of primary health care mobile clinics for Indigenous populations in Australia, Canada, New Zealand, and the United States. There is a paucity of evaluations supporting the use of mobile clinics for Indigenous populations and a need for organisations implementing mobile clinics specifically for Indigenous populations to share their experiences. Engaging with the perspectives of Indigenous people accessing mobile clinic services is imperative to future evaluations. REGISTRATION: The protocol for this review has been peer-reviewed and published in JBI Evidence Synthesis (doi: 10.11124/JBISRIR-D-19-00057).

Mobile primary health care clinics for Indigenous populations in Australia, Canada, New Zealand and the United States: a scoping review protocol.

OBJECTIVE: The objective of this review is to explore and examine the available evidence on mobile primary health care clinics for Indigenous populations in Australia, Canada, New Zealand and the United States. INTRODUCTION: Despite the evidence for the effectiveness of primary health care in improving health outcomes, accessing primary care services is often problematic for Indigenous populations in Australia, Canada, New Zealand and the United States. Improving the accessibility of primary health care services for Indigenous populations is considered essential to alleviating the burden of disease and improving well-being. INCLUSION CRITERIA: The review will consider literature that discusses the implementation of a mobile primary health clinic for Indigenous populations. Mobile primary health care clinics targeting Indigenous populations of all ages will be included in this review. Transportable clinics (e.g. van, truck or bus) fitted with health care equipment that deliver health services in a defined geographical area will be included. Only literature published in English from 1 January 2006 will be included. METHODS: Ovid MEDLINE, CINAHL, Embase, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews and SocINDEX will be searched, as well as gray literature sources. The full-text of selected literature will be retrieved and assessed in detail against the inclusion criteria by two independent reviewers. Data will be extracted by two independent reviewers, and a narrative summary will be provided on the objectives, concepts and results of the review question.

Geographical analysis of evaluated chronic disease programs for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people in the Australian primary health care setting: a systematic scoping review.

BACKGROUND: Targeted chronic disease programs are vital to improving health outcomes for Indigenous people globally. In Australia it is not known where evaluated chronic disease programs for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people have been implemented. This scoping review geographically examines where evaluated chronic disease programs for Aboriginal people have been implemented in the Australian primary health care setting. Secondary objectives include scoping programs for evidence of partnerships with Aboriginal organisations, and use of ethical protocols. By doing so, geographical gaps in the literature and variations in ethical approaches to conducting program evaluations are highlighted. METHODS: The objectives, inclusion criteria and methods for this scoping review were specified in advance and documented in a published protocol. This scoping review was undertaken in accordance with the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) scoping review methodology. The search included 11 academic databases, clinical trial registries, and the grey literature. RESULTS: The search resulted in 6894 citations, with 241 retrieved from the grey literature and targeted organisation websites. Title, abstract, and full-text screening was conducted by two independent reviewers, with 314 citations undergoing full review. Of these, 74 citations evaluating 50 programs met the inclusion criteria. Of the programs included in the geographical analysis (n = 40), 32.1% were implemented in Major Cities and 29.6% in Very Remote areas of Australia. A smaller proportion of programs were delivered in Inner Regional (12.3%), Outer Regional (18.5%) and Remote areas (7.4%) of Australia. Overall, 90% (n = 45) of the included programs collaborated with an Aboriginal organisation in the implementation and/or evaluation of the program. Variation in the use of ethical guidelines and protocols in the evaluation process was evident. CONCLUSIONS: A greater focus on the evaluation of chronic disease programs for Aboriginal people residing in Inner and Outer Regional areas, and Remote areas of Australia is required. Across all geographical areas further efforts should be made to conduct evaluations in partnership with Aboriginal communities residing in the geographical region of program implementation. The need for more scientifically and ethically rigorous approaches to Aboriginal health program evaluations is evident.