Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36424640›Full record

ArticleImplementation science communications2022

Adaptation and implementation processes of a culture-centred community-based peer-education programme for older Māori.

Mary Louisa Simpson, Stacey Ruru, John Oetzel, Pare Meha, Sophie Nock, Kathrine Holmes, Hariata Adams, Ngapera Akapita, Marama Clark, Kawarau Ngaia and 3 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Implementation science communications, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing 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

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

  1. Addressing Power in Local-Level Policies and Programs to Reduce Health Inequities - A Systematic Review.International journal of social determinants of health and health services · 2026
    Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. 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

13 authors.

Mary Louisa SimpsonWaikato Management School, University of Waikato, Hamilton, New Zealand. mary.simpson@waikato.ac.nz.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-3915-4897
Stacey RuruUniversity of Waikato, Hamilton, New Zealand.
John OetzelWaikato Management School, University of Waikato, Hamilton, New Zealand.
Pare MehaRauawaawa Kaumātua Charitable Trust, Hamilton, New Zealand.
Sophie NockFaculty of Māori and Indigenous Studies, University of Waikato, Hamilton, New Zealand.
Kathrine HolmesRanolf Medical Centre, Rotorua, New Zealand.
Hariata AdamsTe Korowai Hauora O Hauraki-Thames, Thames, New Zealand.
Ngapera AkapitaNgāti Ruanui W'anau Ora, Hāwera, New Zealand.
Marama ClarkPoutiri Charitable Trust, Te Puke, New Zealand.
Kawarau NgaiaTe Korowai o Ngāruahine Trust, Hāwera, New Zealand.
Reuben MosesTe Roopu Tautoko Ki Te Tonga, Dunedin, New Zealand.
Rangimahora ReddyRauawaawa Kaumātua Charitable Trust, Hamilton, New Zealand.
Brendan HokowhituUniversity of Queensland, Brisbane, QLD, Australia.

Funding

Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment 18566SUB1953
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundHealth inequities experienced by kaumātua (older Māori) in Aotearoa, New Zealand, are well documented. Examples of translating and adapting research into practice that identifies ways to help address such inequities are less evident. The study used the He Pikinga Waiora (HPW) implementation framework and the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) to explore promising co-design and implementation practices in translating an evidence-based peer-education programme for older Māori to new communities.

methodsThe study was grounded in an Indigenous methodology (Kaupapa Māori) and a participatory research approach. Data were collected from research documentation, community meeting and briefing notes, and interviews with community researchers.

resultsThe data analysis resulted in several key promising practices: Kaumātua mana motuhake (kaumātua independence and autonomy) where community researchers centred the needs of kaumātua in co-designing the programme with researchers; Whanaungatanga (relationships and connectedness) which illustrated how community researchers' existing and emerging relationships with kaumātua, research partners, and each other facilitated the implementation process; and Whakaoti Rapanga (problem-solving) which centred on the joint problem-solving undertaken by the community and university researchers, particularly around safety issues. These results illustrate content, process, and relationship issues associated with implementation effectiveness.

conclusionsThis study showed that relational factors are central to the co-design process and also offers an example of a braided river, or He Awa Whiria, approach to implementation. The study offers a valuable case study in how to translate, adapt, and implement a research-based health programme to Indigenous community settings through co-design processes.

trial registrationThe project was registered on 6 March 2020 with the Australia New Zealand Clinical Trial Registry: ACTRN12620000316909 . Prospectively registered.

Indexed as

Co-designCommunity-engaged researchCulture centredHealth inequityImplementation frameworksIndigenousMāori

Identifiers

PMID36424640
PMCPMC9694883

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.