ReviewDialogues in health2023
At the cultural interface: A systematic review of study characteristics and cultural integrity from twenty years of randomised controlled trials with Indigenous participants.
Review in Dialogues in health, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Cardiovascular disease risk reduction interventions for indigenous women: an umbrella review.Health promotion international · 2026Pooled it
- Engaging with the All My Relations Advisory Board in a healthy food incentive randomized controlled trial: a qualitative process evaluation.CMAJ : Canadian Medical Association journal = journal de l'Association medicale canadienne · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose and aim: To identify and describe characteristics of Randomised Control Trial (RCT) design, implementation, and interpretation with a view tostrengtheningen the cultural integrity and scientific quality of this genre of research when used with, for and by Indigenous peoples. Issue: RCTs are widely regarded as the 'gold standard' method for evaluating the efficacy of an intervention. However, issues of cultural acceptability and higher attrition rates among RCT participants from diverse populations, including Indigenous participants, have been reported. A better understanding of cultural acceptability and attrition rates of RCTs has the potential to impact the translation of findings into effective policies, programs and practice. Method: A search of four electronic databases identified papers describing RCTs enrolling exclusively Australian Indigenous peoples over a 20-year period. The RCTs were assessed using: The Effective Public Health Practice Project's Quality Assessment Tool (EPHPP) and the Aboriginal & Torres Strait Islander Quality Appraisal Tool (QAT). The scores for each paper and the average scores of all papers were visualised using a Microsoft Excel™ Filled Radar Plot. Results: Seventeen trials met the inclusion criteria. There was wide variation in the quality of the included trials as assessed by the EPHPP and almost universally poor results when assessed for cultural appropriateness and integrity by the QAT. Conclusion: The value of the RCT research method, when applied to ultimately improve Australian Indigenous peoples' health, is diminished if issues of cultural integrity are not intrinsic to study design and execution. Our review found that it is feasible to have an RCT with both strong cultural integrity and high scientific quality. Attention to cultural integrity and community engagement, along with methodological rigour, may strengthen community ownership and contribute to more successful study adherence and potentially more effective translation of study findings into policy and practice.
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.