ArticleBMC public health2015
Strengths and limitations of a tool for monitoring and evaluating First Peoples' health promotion from an ecological perspective.
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 7 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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.
Who cites it
7 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Pooled it
- Culturally Informed Australian Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Evaluations: A Scoping Review.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2023Article
- Toward resourcefulness: pathways for community positive health.Global health promotion · 2022Review
- Applying an authentic partnership approach to facilitate optimal health of Aboriginal children.Primary health care research & development · 2022Article
- Is Aboriginal nutrition a priority for local government? A policy analysis.Public health nutrition · 2017Article
- A prospective evaluation of first people's health promotion program design in the goulburn-murray rivers region.BMC health services research · 2016Article
- An Australian model of the First 1000 Days: an Indigenous-led process to turn an international initiative into an early-life strategy benefiting indigenous families.Global health, epidemiology and genomics · 2016Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAn ecological approach to health and health promotion targets individuals and the environmental determinants of their health as a means of more effectively influencing health outcomes. The approach has potential value as a means to more accurately capture the holistic nature of Australian First Peoples' health programs and the way in which they seek to influence environmental, including social, determinants of health.
methodsWe report several case studies of applying an ecological approach to health program evaluation using a tool developed for application to mainstream public health programs in North America - Richard's ecological coding procedure.
resultsWe find the ecological approach in general, and the Richard procedure specifically, to have potential for broader use as an approach to reporting and evaluation of health promotion programs. However, our experience applying this tool in academic and community-based program evaluation contexts, conducted in collaboration with First Peoples of Australia, suggests that it would benefit from cultural adaptations that would bring the ecological coding procedure in greater alignment with the worldviews of First Peoples and better identify the aims and strategies of local health promotion programs.
conclusionsEstablishing the cultural validity of the ecological coding procedure is necessary to adequately capture the underlying program activities of community-based health promotion programs designed to benefit First Peoples, and its collaborative implementation with First Peoples supports a human rights approach to health program evaluation.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.