Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35680132›Full record

ReviewBMJ global health2022

Questioning the ethics of evidence-based practice for Indigenous health and social settings in Australia.

Joanne Luke, Ebony Verbunt, Angela Zhang, Muriel Bamblett, Gabrielle Johnson, Connie Salamone, David Thomas, Sandra Eades, Lina Gubhaju, Margaret Kelaher and 1 more

Open access · goldAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed
2.8field-weighted citation impact, top 10% 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

9 citing papers in PubMed, 18 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. "Connecting to the Earth" (Australian journal of psychology · 2026
    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

11 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Joanne LukeCentre for Health Policy, The University of Melbourne School of Population and Global Health, Carlton South, Victoria, Australia jnluke@unimelb.edu.au.
Ebony VerbuntCentre for Health Policy, The University of Melbourne School of Population and Global Health, Carlton South, Victoria, Australia.
Angela ZhangCentre for Health Policy, The University of Melbourne School of Population and Global Health, Carlton South, Victoria, Australia.
Muriel BamblettVictorian Aboriginal Child Care Agency, Preston, Victoria, Australia.
Gabrielle JohnsonVictorian Aboriginal Child Care Agency, Preston, Victoria, Australia.
Connie SalamoneVictorian Aboriginal Child Care Agency, Preston, Victoria, Australia.
David ThomasMenzies School of Health Research, Casuarina, Northern Territory, Australia.
Sandra EadesCentre for Epidemiology and Biostatistics, The School of Population and Global Health, The University of Melbourne, Carlton South, Victoria, Australia.
Lina GubhajuCentre for Epidemiology and Biostatistics, The School of Population and Global Health, The University of Melbourne, Carlton South, Victoria, Australia.
Margaret KelaherCentre for Health Policy, The University of Melbourne School of Population and Global Health, Carlton South, Victoria, Australia.
Amanda JonesVictorian Aboriginal Child Care Agency, Preston, Victoria, Australia.
University of Melbourne · AUVictorian Aboriginal Health Service · AUMenzies School of Health Research · AU

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

Evidence-Based PracticeAustraliaAustralian Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander PeoplesHumansResearch DesignHealth policies and all other topicsHealth policyPublic Health

Identifiers

PMID35680132
PMCPMC9185488
OpenAlexW4282031569

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.