Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28327137›Full record

SynthesisInternational journal for equity in health2017

Does Indigenous health research have impact? A systematic review of reviews.

Irina Kinchin, Janya Mccalman, Roxanne Bainbridge, Komla Tsey, Felecia Watkin Lui

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in International journal for equity in health, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 21 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
21citing papers in PubMed, 3 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

21 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Risk, protective, and biomarkers of dementia in Indigenous peoples: A systematic review.Alzheimer's & dementia : the journal of the Alzheimer's Association · 2024
    Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Our Health Counts: Nothing about us without us in our right to be counted.Canadian journal of public health = Revue canadienne de sante publique · 2024
    Article
  8. Article
  9. From Deficit to Strength-Based Aboriginal Health Research-Moving toward Flourishing.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2023
    Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

5 authors.

Irina KinchinCentre for Indigenous Health Equity Research, School of Health, Medical and Applied Sciences, Psychology and Public Health Department, CQUniversity Australia, Cairns Square, Corner Abbott and Shields Streets, Cairns, Qld, 4870, Australia. i.kinchin@cqu.edu.au.ORCID 0000-0003-0133-2763
Janya MccalmanCentre for Indigenous Health Equity Research, School of Health, Medical and Applied Sciences, Psychology and Public Health Department, CQUniversity Australia, Cairns Square, Corner Abbott and Shields Streets, Cairns, Qld, 4870, Australia.
Roxanne BainbridgeCentre for Indigenous Health Equity Research, School of Health, Medical and Applied Sciences, Psychology and Public Health Department, CQUniversity Australia, Cairns Square, Corner Abbott and Shields Streets, Cairns, Qld, 4870, Australia.
Komla TseyThe Cairns Institute, James Cook University, Building D3, Smithfield, Qld, 4870, Australia.
Felecia Watkin LuiThe Cairns Institute, James Cook University, Building D3, Smithfield, Qld, 4870, Australia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundAboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Australians (hereafter respectfully Indigenous Australians) claim that they have been over-researched without corresponding research benefit. This claim raises two questions. The first, which has been covered to some extent in the literature, is about what type(s) of research are likely to achieve benefits for Indigenous people. The second is how researchers report the impact of their research for Indigenous people. This systematic review of Indigenous health reviews addresses the second enquiry.

methodsFourteen electronic databases were systematically searched for Indigenous health reviews which met eligibility criteria. Two reviewers assessed their characteristics and methodological rigour using an a priori protocol. Three research hypotheses were stated and tested: (1) reviews address Indigenous health priority needs; (2) reviews adopt best practice guidelines on research conduct and reporting in respect to methodological transparency and rigour, as well as acceptability and appropriateness of research implementation to Indigenous people; and (3) reviews explicitly report the incremental impacts of the included studies and translation of research. We argue that if review authors explicitly address each of these three hypotheses, then the impact of research for Indigenous peoples' health would be explicated.

resultsSeventy-six reviews were included; comprising 55 journal articles and 21 Australian Government commissioned evidence review reports. While reviews are gaining prominence and recognition in Indigenous health research and increasing in number, breadth and complexity, there is little reporting of the impact of health research for Indigenous people. This finding raises questions about the relevance of these reviews for Indigenous people, their impact on policy and practice and how reviews have been commissioned, reported and evaluated.

conclusionsThe findings of our study serve two main purposes. First, we have identified knowledge and methodological gaps in documenting Indigenous health research impact that can be addressed by researchers and policy makers. Second, the findings provide the justification for developing a framework allowing researchers and funding bodies to structure future Indigenous health research to improve the reporting and assessment of impact over time.

Indexed as

Biomedical ResearchHealth Services, IndigenousAustraliaHumansRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicReview Literature as TopicClosing the gapDecision makingIndigenous healthOverviewResearch benefitResearch impactResearch valueSystematic reviewTranslation

Identifiers

PMID28327137
PMCPMC5361858

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.