Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26965040›Full record

ReviewInternational journal for equity in health2016

The effectiveness of implementation in Indigenous Australian healthcare: an overview of literature reviews.

Janya McCalman, Roxanne Bainbridge, Nikki Percival, Komla Tsey

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in International journal for equity in health, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
16citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

16 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
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

4 authors.

Janya McCalmanSchool of Human Health and Social Sciences, CQUniversity, cnr Abbott and Spence St, Cairns, QLD, 4870, Australia. j.mccalman@cqu.edu.au.
Roxanne BainbridgeSchool of Human Health and Social Sciences, CQUniversity, cnr Abbott and Spence St, Cairns, QLD, 4870, Australia.
Nikki PercivalMenzies School of Health Research, PO Box 10639, Adelaide Street, Brisbane, QLD, 4000, Australia.
Komla TseyCollege of Arts, Society and Education, James Cook University, PO Box 6811, Cairns, QLD, 4870, Australia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundEffective implementation can maximise the beneficial impacts of health services. It is therefore important to review implementation in the context of Indigenous populations, who suffer some of the greatest disadvantage within developed countries. This paper analyses Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander (hereafter Indigenous) Australian health implementation reviews to examine the research question: What is the effectiveness of implementation, as reported in the Indigenous Australian health implementation literature?

methodsEight databases were systematically searched to find reviews of Indigenous Australian health services and/or programs where implementation was the focus. Search terms included Aborigin* OR Indigen* OR Torres AND health AND service OR program* OR intervention AND implementation (or like terms) AND Australia AND review. Review findings were analysed through the lens of the PARiHS framework which theorises that successful implementation occurs through the interplay of evidence, context and facilitation. The review followed Cochrane methods but was not registered.

resultsSix reviews were found; these encompassed 107 studies that considered health service/program implementation. Included studies described many health services implemented across Australia as not underpinned by rigorous impact evaluation; nevertheless implementers tended to prefer evidence-based interventions. Effective implementation was supported by clearly defined management systems, employment of Indigenous health workers as leaders, community control, partnerships, tailoring for diverse places and settings; and active facilitation methods. Short-term funding meant most studies focused on implementation in one site through pilot initiatives. Only two mentioned cost effectiveness. Indigenous Australian studies incorporated two elements not included in the PARiHS reference guide: the value of community control and equity of service provision across sites.

conclusionsComparison of the Indigenous Australian review findings against the PARiHS reference guide elements suggested a fledgling but growing state of Indigenous implementation research, and considerable scope to improve the effectiveness of implementation. Further research is required to explore Indigenous people's understandings of what is important in healthcare implementation; particularly in relation to the value of community control and equity issues.

Indexed as

Health Services Needs and DemandAustraliaAustralian Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander PeoplesHealthcare DisparitiesHealth Services AccessibilityHealth Services, IndigenousHumansPopulation GroupsAboriginal and Torres Strait IslanderCommunity controlHealth equityHealth programsHealth servicesImplementationIndigenous AustralianPARiHS frameworkReview

Identifiers

PMID26965040
PMCPMC4787175

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.