Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33272249›Full record

ArticleBMC public health2020

Walking the talk: evaluating the alignment between Australian governments' stated principles for working in Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander health contexts and health evaluation practice.

Joanne N Luke, Angeline S Ferdinand, Yin Paradies, Daniel Chamravi, Margaret Kelaher

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC public health, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
0.7field-weighted citation impact, top 21% of its field
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

5 citing papers in PubMed, 12 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
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 at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Joanne N LukeEvaluation and Implementation Science Unit, Centre for Health Policy, Melbourne School of Population & Global Health, The University of Melbourne, 4/207 Bouverie Street, South Carlton, VIC, 3053, Australia. jnluke@unimelb.edu.au.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7967-3309
Angeline S FerdinandEvaluation and Implementation Science Unit, Centre for Health Policy, Melbourne School of Population & Global Health, The University of Melbourne, 4/207 Bouverie Street, South Carlton, VIC, 3053, Australia.
Yin ParadiesSchool of Humanities and Social Sciences, Deakin University, Burwood, VIC, 3125, Australia.
Daniel ChamraviEvaluation and Implementation Science Unit, Centre for Health Policy, Melbourne School of Population & Global Health, The University of Melbourne, 4/207 Bouverie Street, South Carlton, VIC, 3053, Australia.
Margaret KelaherEvaluation and Implementation Science Unit, Centre for Health Policy, Melbourne School of Population & Global Health, The University of Melbourne, 4/207 Bouverie Street, South Carlton, VIC, 3053, Australia.
The University of Melbourne · AUDeakin University · AU

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundStated principles in government policy documents serve as a set of values outlining how governments intend to work. As such, health planning principles should be reflected in health policy across the cycle of planning, implementation and evaluation. Such principles should be reflected in the process of governments commissioning and funding evaluation, and in the work of those commissioned to do evaluation on behalf of governments.

methodsWe reviewed health planning policy documents to identify principles Australian State and Territory and National governments stated as being important to the work they do within Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander health contexts. Evaluation tenders and reports relating to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander health policy, programs and service for the period 1-Jan-2007 to 1-Jan-2017 were retrieved and assessed as to whether they embedded principles governments state as important.

resultsIn Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander health planning policy contexts, Australian governments outline shared responsibility, cultural competence, engagement, partnership, capacity building, equity, a holistic concept of health, accountability, and evidence-based as fundamental principles that will underpin the work they will do. In total, we identified 390 publicly advertised evaluation tenders, but were only able to retrieve 18 tenders and 97 reports. Despite strong rhetoric placing importance on the abovementioned principles, these were not consistently embedded in tenders released by government commissioners, nor in reports largely commissioned by governments. Principles most widely incorporated in documents were those corresponding to Closing the Gap - accountability, evidence-based and equity. Principles of holistic concept of health, capacity building, cultural competence and partnership do not appear well applied in evaluation practice.

conclusionNotwithstanding the tensions and criticism of current practice that sees dominant governments policing Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander populations and defining what principles should inform health policy and evaluation practice, this paper reveals shortcomings in current evaluation practice. Firstly, this paper reveals a lack of transparency about current practice, with only 2% of tenders and 25% of reports in the public domain. Secondly, this paper reveals that governments do not 'walk the talk', particularly when it comes to principles relating to Aboriginal participation in health.

Indexed as

Capacity BuildingAustraliaGovernmentHealth PolicyHumansAboriginalEvaluationHealthHealth planningIndigenousPolicyTorres Strait Islander

Identifiers

PMID33272249
PMCPMC7713017
OpenAlexW3110411281

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.