Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26202429›Full record

ArticleBMC public health2015

No one's discussing the elephant in the room: contemplating questions of research impact and benefit in Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Australian health research.

Roxanne Bainbridge, Komla Tsey, Janya McCalman, Irina Kinchin, Vicki Saunders, Felecia Watkin Lui, Yvonne Cadet-James, Adrian Miller, Kenny Lawson

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC public health, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 84 papers, 7 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
84citing papers in PubMed, 7 pooled it
13.0field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

84 citing papers in PubMed, 7 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 271 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Trial
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Practical Application of Ethical Research Principles: Developing and Implementing Grassroots Food Security Research With the Yarrabah Aboriginal Community.Health promotion journal of Australia : official journal of Australian Association of Health Promotion Professionals · 2026
    Article
  12. Non-Indigenous Public Health Educators' Readiness to Engage With Aboriginal Elders and Knowledge-Holders: A Baseline Study Informing Indigenous-Led Consultation.Health promotion journal of Australia : official journal of Australian Association of Health Promotion Professionals · 2026
    Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Observational
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Review

24 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Roxanne BainbridgeThe Cairns Institute, James Cook University, PO Box 6811, Cairns, Queensland, 4870, Australia. roxanne.bainbridge@jcu.edu.au.
Komla TseyThe Cairns Institute, James Cook University, PO Box 6811, Cairns, Queensland, 4870, Australia. komla.tsey@jcu.edu.au.
Janya McCalmanThe Cairns Institute, James Cook University, PO Box 6811, Cairns, Queensland, 4870, Australia. janya.mccalman@jcu.edu.au.
Irina KinchinThe Cairns Institute, James Cook University, PO Box 6811, Cairns, Queensland, 4870, Australia. irina.kinchin@jcu.edu.au.
Vicki SaundersMidwifery and Nutrition, School of Nursing, James Cook University, 1 James Cook Drive, Townsville City, Queensland, 4811, Australia. vicki.saunders@my.jcu.edu.au.
Felecia Watkin LuiIndigenous Centre, James Cook University, PO Box 6811, Cairns, Queensland, 4870, Australia. felecia.watkin@jcu.edu.au.
Yvonne Cadet-JamesIndigenous Centre, James Cook University, James Cook Drive, Townsville City, Queensland, 4811, Australia. yvonne.cadetjames@jcu.edu.au.
Adrian MillerIndigenous Research Unit, Griffith University Nathan Campus, 170 Kessels Road, Nathan, Queensland, 4111, Australia. adrian.miller@griffith.edu.au.
Kenny LawsonCentre for Chronic Disease Prevention, James Cook University, PO Box 6811, Cairns, Queensland, 4870, Australia. kenny.lawson@jcu.edu.au.
James Cook University · AUGriffith University · AU

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThere remains a concern that Indigenous Australians have been over-researched without corresponding improvements in their health; this trend is applicable to most Indigenous populations globally. This debate article has a dual purpose: 1) to open a frank conversation about the value of research to Indigenous Australian populations; and 2) to stimulate ways of thinking about potential resolutions to the lack of progress made in the Indigenous research benefit debate. DISCUSSION: Capturing the meaning of research benefit takes the form of ethical value-oriented methodological considerations in the decision-making processes of Indigenous research endeavours. Because research practices come from Western knowledge bases, attaining such positions in research means reconciling both Indigenous and Western knowledge systems to produce new methodologies that guide planning, evaluating and monitoring of research practices as necessary. Increasingly, more sophisticated performance measures have been implemented to ensure academic impact and benefits are captured. Assessing societal and other non-academic impacts and benefits however, has not been accorded corresponding attention. Research reform has only focussed on research translation in more recent years. The research impact debate must take account of the various standards of accountability (to whom), impact priorities (for whom), positive and negative impacts, and biases that operate in describing impact and measuring benefit. SUMMARY: A perennial question in Indigenous research discourse is whether the abundance of research conducted; purportedly to improve health, is justified and benefits Indigenous people in ways that are meaningful and valued by them. Different research stakeholders have different conceptions of the value and nature of research, its conduct, what it should achieve and the kinds of benefits expected. We need to work collaboratively and listen more closely to the voice of Indigenous Australians to better understand, demonstrate and measure health research benefits. The authors conclude that as an imperative, a systematic benefit assessment strategy that includes identification of research priorities and planning, monitoring and evaluation components needs to be developed and implemented across research projects. In Indigenous health research, this will often mean adopting a benefit-led approach by changing the way research is done and preferencing alternative research methodologies. As a point of departure to improving impact and reaching mutually beneficial outcomes for researchers and partners in Indigenous health research, we need to routinise the assessment of benefit from outset of research as one of the standards toward which we work.

Indexed as

AustraliaCooperative BehaviorHealth Services Needs and DemandHealth Services ResearchHealth Status DisparitiesHumans

Identifiers

PMID26202429
PMCPMC4511988
OpenAlexW1809728561

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.