Background Traditional randomised controlled trials remain the gold standard for improving clinical care but they do have their limitations, including their associated high costs, high failure rate and limited external validity. An alternative methodology is the newly defined, prospective, registry-based randomised controlled trial (RRCT), where treatment and outcome data is collected in an existing registry. This scoping review explores the current literature regarding RRCTs to help identify the key design elements of RRCTs and the characteristics of clinical registries on which they are reliant on. Methods A scoping review methodology conducted in accordance with the Joanna Briggs Institute guidelines was performed. Four databases were searched for articles published from inception to June 2018: Medline; Embase; the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature and; Scopus. The search strategy included MeSH and text words related to RRCT. Results We identified 2369 articles of which 75 were selected for full-text screening. Of these, only 17 articles satisfied our inclusion criteria. All studies were published between 1996 and 2017 and all were investigator-initiated. Study designs were mainly multi-site comparative/effectiveness studies incorporating the use of disease registries (n = 8), procedure registries (n = 8) and a health services registry (n = 1). The low cost, reduced administrative burden and enhanced external validity of RRCTs make them an attractive research methodology which can be used to address questions of public health importance. We identified that that there are variable definitions of what constituted a RRCT and that issues related to ethical conduct and data integrity, completeness, timeliness, validation and endpoint adjudication need to be carefully addressed. Conclusion RRCTs potentially have an important role to play in informing best clinical practice and health policy. There are a number of issues that need to be addressed to optimise the utility of this approach, including establishing universally accepted criteria for the definition of a RRCT.
Introduction The cultural determinants of health centre an Indigenous definition of health, and have been linked to positive health and wellbeing outcomes. There is growing evidence for the importance of the cultural determinants of health; however, to date, no high-level overview of the evidence-base has been provided. Synthesising existing literature on cultural determinants of health for Aboriginal peoples in a single manuscript will highlight what we know, and what needs to be explored in future research. It will also contribute to global efforts to capture the evidence of cultural determinant approaches amongst Indigenous populations. We therefore endeavoured to identify cultural determinants and highlight their impact on Aboriginal health and wellbeing outcomes, and outline the relationship and interconnection of different cultural determinants of health. Methods An overview of reviews was conducted. Medline (Ovid) and Scopus were searched using terms related to ‘cultural determinants of health’ and an ‘Aboriginal definition of health’. The database search was complemented by a web-based search of grey literature. Nine reviews were retrieved and included in our overview. Results Family/community, Country and place, cultural identity and self-determination were strongly identified across reviews as having a positive impact on the health and wellbeing outcomes of Aboriginal peoples. Family/community and Country and place were found to be components of ‘culture’ that shaped cultural identity. Self-determination was outlined as a requirement for Aboriginal peoples to pursue their cultural, social, and economic rights. Discussion/conclusions Cultural determinants are associated with health benefits for Indigenous peoples. A causal framework, developed to discuss the relationship and interconnection of the cultural determinants of health, demonstrates that cultural identity at an individual-level is important to benefiting from other cultural determinants of health. While self-determination and connection to culture and community-controlled organisations are integral factors to increase Aboriginal resilience and resistance and improve health and wellbeing outcomes. Further research is required to shift towards a multi-level understanding of the cultural determinants of health and to develop an Indigenous-led evidence-base around causal pathways. Such a shift would ensure priorities important to Indigenous peoples are captured in policy and practice.
Objective: This study aimed to explore factors across the environment, organisation and care team levels of the health care system that influence the engagement of primary healthcare workers (PHCWs) in Australia's national cancer screening programs. Methods: A cross‐sectional qualitative study involving semi‐structured interviews with PHCWs – general practitioners (n=10), practices nurses (n=10), and practice managers (n=10) from settings across Australia. Transcripts were analysed using the Framework Method. Results: Two environment‐level factors were found to influence several organisation and care team level factors. Firstly, the financial structure of primary health care, impacting on practitioner: time, practice culture, screening knowledge and opportunistic conversations. Secondly, the structure of screening programs had flow‐on effects for: access to patient screening records, recall and reminder systems, and sense of program ownership. Conclusions: Encouraging more effective PHCW engagement in the screening programs requires the consideration and mitigation of overarching financial and structural barriers. Up‐to‐date and easy‐to‐use recall and reminder systems, whole‐of‐practice approaches which optimise the role of each PHCW and the identification of a ‘champion’ to drive implementation should be considered. Implications for public health: This study offers insights into what elements practice and practitioner targeted initiatives in Australia should incorporate, potentially leading to improved engagement of PHCWs and increased cancer screening participation rates.
Australian government planning promotes evidence-based action as the overarching goal to achieving health equality for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander populations. However, an inequitable distribution of power and resources in the conduct of evidence-based practice produces a policy environment counterintuitive to this goal. This context of contemporary evidence-based practice gives legitimacy to ‘expert practitioners’ located in Australian governments and universities to use Western guidelines and tools, embedded in Western methodology, to make ‘evidence’ informed policy and programming decisions about Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander populations. This method for decision making assumes a positional superiority that can marginalise the important perspectives, experiences and knowledge of Aboriginal Community Controlled Organisations and their processes for decision making. Here we consider the four steps of an evidence review: (1) developing a review question; (2) acquiring studies; (3) appraising the evidence and (4) assessing the evidence, as components of wider evidence-based practice. We discuss some of the limitations across each step that arise from the broader context within which the evidence review is produced. We propose that an ethical and just approach to evidence-based review can be achieved through a well-resourced Aboriginal community controlled sector, where Aboriginal organisations generate their own evidence and evidence is reviewed using methods and tools that privilege Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander ways of knowing, doing and being.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.