Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41199266›Full record

ArticleInternational journal for equity in health2025

'Activating Indigenous ways' - perceptions of how Australian Indigenous health and wellbeing program evaluations are commissioned and future recommendations.

Summer May Finlay, Amohia Boulton, Jenni Judd, Bronwyn Fredericks, Janaya Pender, James A Smith, Helen Simpson, Yvette Roe, Sophie Kerrigan, Anna Temby and 1 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in International journal for equity in health, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. True Co-Design: Buzzword or Breakthrough? The Value of Authentic Relationships in Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Health Promotion.Health promotion journal of Australia : official journal of Australian Association of Health Promotion Professionals · 2026
    Article
  2. 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

11 authors.

Summer May FinlayUniversity of Wollongong, Wollongong, Australia. sfinlay@uow.edu.au.
Amohia BoultonWhakauae Research Services Ltd, Whanganui, New Zealand.
Jenni JuddCentral Queensland University, Rockhampton, Australia.
Bronwyn FredericksThe University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia.
Janaya PenderLowitja Institute, Melbourne, Australia.
James A SmithFlinders University, Adelaide, Australia.
Helen SimpsonUniversity of Wollongong, Wollongong, Australia.
Yvette RoeCharles Darwin University, Darwin, Australia.
Sophie KerriganUniversity of Wollongong, Wollongong, Australia.
Anna TembyUniversity of Wollongong, Wollongong, Australia.
Margaret CargoFlinders University, Adelaide, Australia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundIn Australia, billions of dollars are spent on Indigenous programs, services, and initiatives annually; however, more evidence is needed regarding which modes of commissioning program evaluations best benefit Indigenous communities. The Australian Productivity Commission called for 'more and better' evaluations of Indigenous programs, and commissioning processes that engage Indigenous communities, organisations, and leaders. So, too, have Indigenous representative organisations, Indigenous services, and stakeholders. To date, few studies have sought to characterise the commissioning practices of government and non-government organisations surrounding Indigenous health and wellbeing programs. Fewer still have investigated the role of Indigenous engagement and leadership before, during and after the commissioning process.

methodsUsing Indigenous Standpoint Theory and a qualitative approach, this study illuminates the perceptions of Australian Indigenous and non-Indigenous commissioners, evaluators, and providers on the commissioning of evaluated Indigenous health and wellbeing programs.

resultsBuilding on a published scoping review by undertaking 23 qualitative interviews with 35 Australian-based participants about commissioning practices, this study verifies and canvases the strengths of individual commissioning models, and the interplay between power, cultural safety, and reciprocity in the commissioning space. The paper also considers the relationship between these three factors along a continuum of practice and posits a sliding scale across the five commissioning models.

conclusionsTo improve the quality of evaluations further attention needs to be paid to the commissioner's cultural capability. Additionally, Commissioners need to develop their understanding of the relationship between Commissioner and Indigenous people's power and the utility of evaluations.

Indexed as

Health Services, IndigenousProgram EvaluationAustraliaHumansPerceptionQualitative ResearchAboriginal and Torres Strait IslanderCommissioningEvaluationIndigenousPolicy

Identifiers

PMID41199266
PMCPMC12593848

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.