BackgroundCommunity development is a health promotion approach identified as having great potential to improve Indigenous health, because of its potential for extensive community participation. There has been no systematic examination of the extent of community participation in community development projects and little analysis of their effectiveness. This systematic review aims to identify the extent of community participation in community development projects implemented in Australian Indigenous communities, critically appraise the qualitative and quantitative methods used in their evaluation, and summarise their outcomes.MethodsTen electronic peer-reviewed databases and two electronic grey literature databases were searched for relevant studies published between 1990 and 2015. The level of community participation and the methodological quality of the qualitative and quantitative components of the studies were assessed against standardised criteria.ResultsThirty one evaluation studies of community development projects were identified. Community participation varied between different phases of project development, generally high during project implementation, but low during the evaluation phase. For the majority of studies, methodological quality was low and the methods were poorly described. Although positive qualitative or quantitative outcomes were reported in all studies, only two studies reported statistically significant outcomes.Discussion Partnerships between researchers, community members and service providers have great potential to improve methodological quality and community participation when research skills and community knowledge are integrated to design, implement and evaluate community development projects.ConclusionThe methodological quality of studies evaluating Australian Indigenous community development projects is currently too weak to confidently determine the cost-effectiveness of community development projects in improving the health and wellbeing of Indigenous Australians. Higher quality studies evaluating community development projects would strengthen the evidence base.

The aims of National Disability Insurance Scheme (NDIS) are to provide long‐term, person‐centred care and support to all Australians with a significant and ongoing disability, including individuals with an acquired brain injury (ABI). The scheme has significant potential to provide equitable opportunity of access to health and disability services. Historically, however, service provision in remote and outer regional areas of Australia lags behind more densely populated centres. Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders living with disability are already significantly marginalised. Further to this, people with an ABI are very often misunderstood and overlooked by disability services, health professionals and governments, and frequently fall victim to the criminal justice system. This paper provides an overview of the state of ABI disability for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders in remote and outer regional settings, and the present sets of barriers they face to obtaining quality care and effective interventions. A significant opportunity has emerged with the advent of the NDIS but equitable benefit can only be achieved if additional and specialised measures are devised and implemented to appropriately screen for, and assess, incidence of ABI; disability services are appropriately resourced to overcome the pre‐existing disadvantage, and education, training and recruitment of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders with the NDIS is undertaken to lead attitudinal changes in community to disability and health services. This paper concludes with recommendations for the NDIS to meet its laudable objectives.

With the advent of the United Nation's 2030 Sustainable Development Agenda, and its 17 Sustainable Development Goals, there is a call for more methodologies to understand and evaluate combinations of these global challenges, their integrated nature and their complexities. Accordingly, UN Women Independent Evaluation Office along with Australian and American researchers have written and piloted a new evaluation guide: Inclusive Systemic Evaluation for Gender equality, Environments and Marginalized voices (ISE4GEMs): A new approach for the SDG era (2018). Referred to as the 'ISE4GEMs', this guide is an original piece of work that brings together transdisciplinary evaluation methods, rethinks systemic evaluation methodology and introduces the Gender equality, Environments and Marginalized voices (GEMs) framework. This article provides a summary of the key theoretical concepts that have been synthesized from systems thinking, social and ecological sciences to produce process guidance.

This paper provides the findings of a study to locate the similarity and/or differences between two epistemologies: critical systems thinking and cultural ecofeminism. Selected texts from authors in each field were coded and compared using the Constant comparative analysis, grounded theory method. The analysis revealed a multitude of similarities across a range of concepts, including systems thinking language; challenges to positivist science, reason and instrumentalism; ethics and morality and praxis. The analysis also revealed several emergent principles for working towards a feminist systems theory of practice.

No abstract