ArticleEye (London, England)2024
Use of the CONSIDER statement by eye health researchers when conducting and reporting research involving Indigenous peoples: an online survey.
Article in Eye (London, England), 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundIndigenous peoples experience worse eye health compared to non-Indigenous peoples. Service providers and researchers must avoid perpetuating this inequity. To help achieve this, researchers can use the CONSolIDated critERia for strengthening the reporting of health research involving Indigenous peoples (CONSIDER) statement. This study aimed to identify the degree to which the CONSIDER statement has been used by eye health researchers when conducting and reporting research with an Indigenous component, and how they perceive its relevance in their future research.
methodsWe used purposive sampling to recruit eye health researchers from any country who have undertaken research with an Indigenous component. The online survey collected quantitative and qualitative data and was analysed using descriptive statistics and reflexive thematic analysis. Responses were gathered on a four-point Likert scale (1 to 4), with four being the most positive statement.
resultsThirty-nine eye health researchers from nine countries completed the survey (Aotearoa New Zealand, Argentina, Australia, Brazil, Canada, Colombia, Guatemala, Panama, Peru); almost two-thirds (n = 24) undertake epidemiological research. On average, participants disclosed only 'sometimes' previously reporting CONSIDER items (2.26 ± 1.14), but they thought the items were relevant to eye health research and were motivated to use these guidelines in their future research. Some participants requested clarity about how CONSIDER aligned with existing guidelines, and when and how to apply the statement. Others shared rich experiences of the benefits to their research of Indigenous leadership and collaboration.
conclusionsThe CONSIDER statement is perceived as a valuable tool by these eye health researchers, and there are opportunities to maximise uptake and use, including increasing awareness of the statement, clarity about when it applies, and availability of institutional-level support.
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.