Background Research reporting guidelines are increasingly commonplace and shown to improve the quality of published health research and health outcomes. Despite severe health inequities among Indigenous Peoples and the potential for research to address the causes, there is an extended legacy of health research exploiting Indigenous Peoples. This paper describes the development of the CONSolIDated critERtia for strengthening the reporting of health research involving Indigenous Peoples (CONSIDER) statement. Methods A collaborative prioritization process was conducted based on national and international statements and guidelines about Indigenous health research from the following nations (Peoples): Australia (Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders), Canada (First Nations Peoples, Métis), Hawaii (Native Hawaiian), New Zealand (Māori), Taiwan (Taiwan Indigenous Tribes), United States of America (First Nations Peoples) and Northern Scandinavian countries (Sami). A review of seven research guidelines was completed, and meta-synthesis was used to construct a reporting guideline checklist for transparent and comprehensive reporting of research involving Indigenous Peoples. Results A list of 88 possible checklist items was generated, reconciled, and categorized. Eight research domains and 17 criteria for the reporting of research involving Indigenous Peoples were identified. The research reporting domains were: (i) governance; (ii) relationships; (iii) prioritization; (iv) methodologies; (v) participation; (vi) capacity; (vii) analysis and findings; and (viii) dissemination. Conclusions The CONSIDER statement is a collaborative synthesis and prioritization of national and international research statements and guidelines. The CONSIDER statement provides a checklist for the reporting of health research involving Indigenous peoples to strengthen research praxis and advance Indigenous health outcomes.

No abstract

Objective: Since 2012, all community care recipients in New Zealand have undergone a standardised needs assessment using the Home Care International Residential Assessment Instrument (interRAI‐HC). This study describes the national interRAI‐HC population, assesses its data quality and evaluates its ability to be matched. Methods: The interRAI‐HC instrument elicits information on 236 questions over 20 domains; conducted by 1,800+ trained health professionals. Assessments between 1 July 2012 and 30 June 2014 are reported here. Stratified by age, demographic characteristics were compared to 2013 Census estimates and selected health profiles described. Deterministic matching to the Ministry of Health's mortality database was undertaken. Results: Overall, 51,232 interRAI‐HC assessments were conducted, with 47,714 (93.1%) research consent from 47,236 unique individuals; including 2,675 Māori and 1,609 Pacific people. Apart from height and weight, data validity and reliability were high. A 99.8% match to mortality data was achieved. Conclusions: The interRAI‐HC research database is large and ethnically diverse, with high consent rates. Its generally good psychometric properties and ability to be matched enhances its research utility. Implications: This national database provides a remarkable opportunity for researchers to better understand older persons’ health and health care, so as to better sustain older people in their own homes.

Background: Persistent inequities in health experiences and outcomes are observed for Māori compared to non-Māori in Aotearoa New Zealand. We conceptualised factors associated with Māori consumer experiences of health programs and services and characterise how the recommendations arising from qualitative research inform strategies to address inequities. Methods: In this systematic review, electronic literature searching was conducted in February 2018. Qualitative studies reporting Māori consumer experiences of health services and programs in Aotearoa New Zealand were eligible. Māori consumer experiences of health services were mapped to the WHO Commission of Social Determinants of Health (CSDH) conceptual framework on health inequities as related to: (i) the socioeconomic and political context; (ii) socioeconomic positioning; or (iii) intermediary factors that increase exposure to health-compromising conditions. Recommendations to improve consumer experiences were mapped to the CSDH framework for tackling social determinants of health inequities as policy directions on: (i) unequal consequences of illness (individual interaction); (ii) risks of exposure to health-damaging factors (community); (iii) exposures to health-damaging factors (public policies); and (iv) mitigating effects of socioeconomic and political stratification (environment). Results: Fifty-four studies were included. Māori consumer experiences mapped to social determinants of health inequities were most frequently related to direct interactions with health services and programs, particularly patient-clinician interactions (communication, relationships) and cultural competencies of clinicians and the system. Key recommendations by researchers mapped to potential strategies to address inequity were identified at all levels of the political, social and health system from individual interactions, community change, and broader public and system-level strategies. Recommendations were predominantly focused on actions to reduce risks of exposure to health-damaging factors including health literacy interventions, increased resources in cultural competencies and Māori capacity in health service development and workforce. Conclusions: Māori consumer experiences of health services and programs are an important informer of variables that impact health inequity. Strategies to tackle health inequities informed by Māori consumer experiences can be drawn from existing empirical research. Future qualitative exploration of how socioeconomic, political and public policies influence Māori consumer experiences of health services and programs could inform a broader range of structural policies to address health inequities.

Systemic barriers acting on and within educational networks have limited the developmental capacity of indigenous health curricula, supported and sustained hidden curricula, and led to insufficient institutional investment to support a comprehensive curriculum. Future research in health professional education should explore these political and network intermediaries acting on cultural competence curricula and how they can be overcome to achieve cultural competency learning outcomes.