Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31842869›Full record

ArticleInternational journal for equity in health2019

Strategies to support culturally safe health and wellbeing evaluations in Indigenous settings in Australia and New Zealand: a concept mapping study.

Margaret Cargo, Gill Potaka-Osborne, Lynley Cvitanovic, Lisa Warner, Sharon Clarke, Jenni Judd, Amal Chakraborty, Amohia Boulton

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in International journal for equity in health, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. 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

8 authors.

Margaret CargoHealth Research Institute, University of Canberra, Canberra, Australia. Margaret.cargo@canberra.edu.au.ORCID 0000-0002-6466-7627
Gill Potaka-OsborneWhakauae Research for Māori Health and Development, Whanganui, New Zealand.
Lynley CvitanovicWhakauae Research for Māori Health and Development, Whanganui, New Zealand.
Lisa WarnerAboriginal Women's Leadership Program, Young Women Christian Association Australia, Adelaide, Australia.
Sharon ClarkeSouth Australian Department of Health and Wellbeing, Adelaide, Australia.
Jenni JuddCentre for Indigenous Health Equity Research, School of Health Medical and Applied Sciences, Central Queensland University Australia, Bundaberg, Australia.
Amal ChakrabortySchool of Health Sciences, University of South Australia, Adelaide, Australia.
Amohia BoultonWhakauae Research for Māori Health and Development, Whanganui, New Zealand.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundIn recent decades, financial investment has been made in health-related programs and services to overcome inequities and improve Indigenous people's wellbeing in Australia and New Zealand. Despite policies aiming to 'close the gap', limited evaluation evidence has informed evidence-based policy and practice. Indigenous leaders have called for evaluation stakeholders to align their practices with Indigenous approaches.

methodsThis study aimed to strengthen culturally safe evaluation practice in Indigenous settings by engaging evaluation stakeholders, in both countries, in a participatory concept mapping study. Concept maps for each country were generated from multi-dimensional scaling and hierarchical cluster analysis.

resultsThe 12-cluster Australia map identifies four cluster regions: An Evaluation Approach that Honours Community; Respect and Reciprocity; Core Heart of the Evaluation; and Cultural Integrity of the Evaluation. The 11-cluster New Zealand map identifies four cluster regions: Authentic Evaluation Practice; Building Māori Evaluation Expertise; Integrity in Māori Evaluation; and Putting Community First. Both maps highlight the importance of cultural integrity in evaluation. Differences include the distinctiveness of the 'Respecting Language Protocols' concept in the Australia map in contrast to language being embedded within the cluster of 'Knowing Yourself as an Evaluator in a Māori Evaluation Context' in the New Zealand map. Participant ratings highlight the importance of all clusters with some relatively more difficult to achieve, in practice. Notably, the 'Funding Responsive to Community Needs and Priorities' and 'Translating Evaluation Findings to Benefit Community' clusters were rated the least achievable, in Australia. The 'Conduct of the Evaluation' and the 'Prioritising Māori Interests' clusters were rated as least achievable in New Zealand. In both countries, clusters of strategies related to commissioning were deemed least achievable.

conclusionsThe results suggest that the commissioning of evaluation is crucial as it sets the stage for whether evaluations: reflect Indigenous interests, are planned in ways that align with Indigenous ways of working and are translated to benefit Indigenous communities Identified strategies align with health promotion principles and relational accountability values of Indigenous approaches to research. These findings may be relevant to the commissioning and conduct of Indigenous health program evaluations in developed nations.

Indexed as

AustraliaAustralian Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander PeoplesCluster AnalysisCulturally Competent CareHealth PromotionHealth Services, IndigenousHealth Status DisparitiesHumansNew ZealandProgram EvaluationAboriginal and Torres Strait islanderCommissioningConcept mappingCultural safetyEvaluationHealth promotionIndigenousMāori

Identifiers

PMID31842869
PMCPMC6916243

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.