ArticleJournal of ethnobiology and ethnomedicine2019
Building partnerships for linking biomedical science with traditional knowledge of customary medicines: a case study with two Australian Indigenous communities.
Article in Journal of ethnobiology and ethnomedicine, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers.
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
11 citing papers in PubMed, 26 citations in OpenAlex.
- Patient- and Public-Led Research - How Is It Defined and Practiced: A Scoping Review.Journal of patient experience · 2026Article
- An Approach to Drug Discovery via Ethnopharmacology and Sustainable Agriculture.Current drug discovery technologies · 2026Review
- Advancing green recovery: Integrating one health in sustainable wildlife management in the Asia-Pacific Indigenous People and Local Communities.One health (Amsterdam, Netherlands) · 2025Review
- Green Extraction Strategies and Bioactivity ofPlants (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Human-forest interaction of useful plants in the Wof Ayzurish Forest, North Showa Zone, Ethiopia: cultural significance index, conservation, and threats.Journal of ethnobiology and ethnomedicine · 2025Article
- A Review of the Ethnobotanical Use, Chemistry and Pharmacological Activities of Constituents Derived from the Plant GenusMetabolites · 2024Review
- Protocol for a scoping review of traditional medicine research methods, methodologies, frameworks and strategies.Frontiers in medicine · 2024Article
- Aboriginal medicinal plants of Queensland: ethnopharmacological uses, species diversity, and biodiscovery pathways.Journal of ethnobiology and ethnomedicine · 2022Review
- Indigenous Uses, Phytochemical Analysis, and Anti-Inflammatory Properties of Australian Tropical Medicinal Plants.Molecules (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Review
- Article
- Community engagement approaches for Indigenous health research: recommendations based on an integrative review.BMJ open · 2020Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 6 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundCustomary medicine of Australia's Indigenous peoples draws upon knowledge developed through millennia of interaction with Australia's unique flora and fauna. Many Indigenous Australians are interested in developing modern medicinal and commercial translations of traditional knowledge; however, barriers of trust and benefit sharing often thwart progress.
methodsUsing a participatory action research framework, university researchers collaborated with members of two Australian Indigenous communities to investigate selected medicinal plants and locally made bush products. A trusted community liaison facilitated the collaboration that was fostered through bilateral site visits. Material transfer and confidentiality agreements ensured that the plant materials were only used for the agreed purpose. Plain language written reports of the laboratory results were provided to the communities with follow up discussions.
resultsIn case study 1, only some of the traditional uses for the raw plants were shared with the researchers. Deidentified plants were assessed for antioxidant and antimicrobial properties. In case study 2, the plant names, traditional uses, and preparation methods were shared with the aim of learning more about their plants, potential uses, and optimising their bush products. Literature reviews were conducted that also helped guide in vitro testing of the crude and solvent partitioned extracts. These differences reflected the community's reasons for conducting the research and intellectual property considerations. In both cases, observed benefits included building trust and strengthening working relationships for ongoing collaboration, fostering enthusiasm for linking traditional and scientific knowledge, promoting cross-cultural learning about scientific methods and traditional medicine, maintaining the relevance of traditional knowledge in the modern world, and initiating community discussions around their bush medicine product development.
conclusionsCommunity-driven scientific investigation of traditional medicinal knowledge can facilitate culturally meaningful outcomes, with potentially wide-reaching direct and indirect benefits. Community liaisons were invaluable for establishment of strong relationships and ensured that the research was culturally and locally appropriate. The need for clearer guidelines and regulation around community-driven biomedical research of their plants was identified. Australia would benefit from a user-friendly, open-source toolkit that promotes use of local traditional medicines, contains information about processes and protocols that communities and scientists could use to develop collaborative projects, and guides regulation and ethical commercialisation. Close consultation and collaboration with communities and researchers will be needed to ensure that such a toolkit is culturally appropriate and fit-for-purpose.
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.