ArticlePilot and feasibility studies2024
Strong culture, healthy lifestyles: a mixed methods feasibility study for a co-created afterschool cultural programme for Australian Aboriginal children.
Article in Pilot and feasibility studies, 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
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundHaving a strong connection to culture and Country is fundamental to the health and wellbeing of Australian Aboriginal children. The aim of the research was to evaluate the feasibility of study methods and programme implementation of a co-created afterschool cultural programme, and identify areas for improvement.
methodsAboriginal Relational Research Methodology and mixed methods were applied to evaluate the feasibility of the implementation of the programme and study methods using a non-randomised single-group study design. Australian Aboriginal children and their siblings aged 5-13 years were recruited within regional New South Wales, Australia. The primary outcomes for feasibility included recruitment rates of children and Aboriginal programme mentors, compliance rates of outcome data collection and of the planned programme activities, programme attendance, retention rates and mean enjoyment scores. Follow-up yarning circles were conducted with the children, their parents/caregivers, programme mentors and teachers to explore aspects of feasibility, and areas for improvement.
resultsA total of 90 caregivers consented to their children (n = 111) being part of the research. Sixteen Aboriginal mentors were recruited to deliver the programmes across the communities. Overall, 74.4% of all health outcome measures were completed across baseline (86.5%) and follow-up (55.9%). Only 61.0% of the programme activities were delivered as originally planned. The average programme attendance rate was 70.0% with a 92.0% retention rate. Eighty-nine percent of children reported a high level of enjoyment with the programmes. Follow-up yarning identified the importance of relational methodologies and flexibility within the programme design and implementation to ensure programmes were adapted to the local community, conditions and differing age groups. Considerations for future programmes included the timing of the programme and identifying health outcome assessment tools and methods that acknowledge cultural protocols and experiences.
conclusionsEngaging the communities in the development, implementation and evaluation of the programmes were key to community support of the programme and conducting the feasibility study. Future programmes and evaluations need to be built on strong partnerships and embrace flexible and culturally embedded methodologies in order to be adaptive and responsive to research approaches, communities and to Country.
trial registrationACTRN12619001224112. Retrospectively registered on 05 September 2019.
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.