ReviewBMJ global health2022
Questioning the ethics of evidence-based practice for Indigenous health and social settings in Australia.
Review in BMJ global health, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 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
9 citing papers in PubMed, 18 citations in OpenAlex.
- PROTOCOL: Measures of Parenting Constructs Utilised With Indigenous Caregivers in Canada, Australia, Aotearoa, and the United States: A Scoping Review Protocol.Campbell systematic reviews · 2026Review
- The role of lived and living experience in evidence-based decision-making in suicide prevention.Health promotion international · 2026Article
- Indigenous excellence: confronting racism and complicity in peer review.Health promotion international · 2026Article
- Article
- "Connecting to the Earth" (Australian journal of psychology · 2026Article
- The Need for Culturally Responsive Nutritional Counselling for Pregnant Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Women in Australia.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2025Article
- Toward culturally responsive psychology higher education courses: psychologists' perspectives on preparedness to work with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander clients.Australian journal of psychology · 2025Article
- Colorectal cancer screening participation in First Nations populations worldwide: a systematic review and data synthesis.EClinicalMedicine · 2024Article
- Unfair knowledge practices in global health: a realist synthesis.Health policy and planning · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Australian government planning promotes evidence-based action as the overarching goal to achieving health equality for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander populations. However, an inequitable distribution of power and resources in the conduct of evidence-based practice produces a policy environment counterintuitive to this goal. This context of contemporary evidence-based practice gives legitimacy to 'expert practitioners' located in Australian governments and universities to use Western guidelines and tools, embedded in Western methodology, to make 'evidence' informed policy and programming decisions about Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander populations. This method for decision making assumes a positional superiority that can marginalise the important perspectives, experiences and knowledge of Aboriginal Community Controlled Organisations and their processes for decision making. Here we consider the four steps of an evidence review: (1) developing a review question; (2) acquiring studies; (3) appraising the evidence and (4) assessing the evidence, as components of wider evidence-based practice. We discuss some of the limitations across each step that arise from the broader context within which the evidence review is produced. We propose that an ethical and just approach to evidence-based review can be achieved through a well-resourced Aboriginal community controlled sector, where Aboriginal organisations generate their own evidence and evidence is reviewed using methods and tools that privilege Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander ways of knowing, doing and being.
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.