ArticleBMJ global health2024
Audit tools for culturally safe and responsive healthcare practices with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people: a scoping review.
Article in BMJ global health, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Scoping review of variation in clinical guidelines for delivery of injectable long-acting penicillin across Australia and Aotearoa New Zealand.The Medical journal of Australia · 2025Article
- 'Ask someone, what is their Dreaming?': Exploring occupational performance coaching with service providers supporting Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander families.Australian occupational therapy journal · 2025Review
- Article
- The Heart Health Yarning Tool: Co-Designing a Shared Decision-Making Tool With Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander People for Cardiovascular Disease Prevention and Risk Management.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people in Australia face disparities in accessing culturally safe and appropriate health services. While current cultural safety and responsiveness frameworks set standards for improving healthcare practices, ensuring accountability and sustainability of changes, necessitates robust mechanisms for auditing and monitoring progress. This study examined existing cultural safety audit tools, and facilitators and barriers to implementation, in the context of providing culturally safe and responsive healthcare services with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people. This will assist organisations, interested in developing tools, to assess culturally responsive practice. A scoping review was undertaken using Medline, Scopus, CINAHL, Informit and PsychInfo databases. Articles were included if they described an audit tool used for healthcare practices with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people. Selected tools were evaluated based on alignment with the six capabilities of the Indigenous Allied Health Australia (IAHA) Cultural Responsiveness in Action Framework. Implementation barriers and facilitators were identified. 15 papers were included. Audit tools varied in length, terminology, domains assessed and whether they had been validated or evaluated. Seven papers reported strong reliability and validity of the tools, and one reported tool evaluation. Implementation facilitators included: tool comprehensiveness and structure; effective communication; clear organisational responsibility for implementation; commitment to prioritising cultural competence; and established accountability mechanisms. Barriers included: the tool being time-consuming and inflexible; responsibility for implementation falling on a small team or single staff member; deprioritising tool use; and lack of accountability for implementation. Two of the six IAHA capabilities (respect for the centrality of cultures and inclusive engagement) were strongly reflected in the tools. The limited tool evaluation highlights the need for further research to determine implementation effectiveness and sustainability. Action-oriented tools, which comprehensively reflect all cultural responsiveness capabilities, are lacking and further research is needed to progress meaningful change within the healthcare system.
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.