Strategies to support culturally safe health and wellbeing evaluations in Indigenous settings in Australia and New Zealand: a concept mapping study

Cargo, Margaret; Potaka-Osborne, Gill; Cvitanovic, Lynley; Warner, Lisa; Clarke, Sharon; Judd, Jenni; Chakraborty, Amal; Boulton, Amohia

doi:10.1186/s12939-019-1094-z

Cited by 15 publications

(17 citation statements)

References 30 publications

(34 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…GCM utilizes both qualitative and multivariate statistical techniques to represent stakeholders’ ideas visually in a series of interpretable two-dimensional maps [ 39 ]. This GCM study followed the procedures outlined by Kane and Trochim [ 39 ], and drew on some of the research team members’ prior experience with application of the methodology in Indigenous and non-Indigenous context in Australia and New Zealand [ 40 , 41 , 42 ]. The study was implemented in a six-step sequential process comprising preparation, brainstorming, sorting and rating, analysis, interpretation, and utilization of the results [ 39 ].…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Prioritizing Built Environmental Factors to Tackle Chronic and Infectious Diseases in Remote Northern Territory (NT) Communities of Australia: A Concept Mapping Study

Chakraborty

Howard

Daniel

et al. 2021

IJERPH

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

High prevalence of chronic and infectious diseases in Indigenous populations is a major public health concern both in global and Australian contexts. Limited research has examined the role of built environments in relation to Indigenous health in remote Australia. This study engaged stakeholders to understand their perceptions of the influence of built environmental factors on chronic and infectious diseases in remote Northern Territory (NT) communities. A preliminary set of 1120 built environmental indicators were systematically identified and classified using an Indigenous Indicator Classification System. The public and environmental health workforce was engaged to consolidate the classified indicators (n = 84), and then sort and rate the consolidated indicators based on their experience with living and working in remote NT communities. Sorting of the indicators resulted in a concept map with nine built environmental domains. Essential services and Facilities for health/safety were the highest ranked domains for both chronic and infectious diseases. Within these domains, adequate housing infrastructure, water supply, drainage system, reliable sewerage and power infrastructure, and access to health services were identified as the most important contributors to the development of these diseases. The findings highlight the features of community environments amenable to public health and social policy actions that could be targeted to help reduce prevalence of chronic and infectious diseases.

show abstract

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Prioritizing Built Environmental Factors to Tackle Chronic and Infectious Diseases in Remote Northern Territory (NT) Communities of Australia: A Concept Mapping Study

Chakraborty

Howard

Daniel

et al. 2021

IJERPH

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Recent findings from a trans-Tasman study on culturally safe evaluation suggest that the way health programs and services are commissioned has a critical impact on whether communities are engaged in evaluation planning and implementation processes. 11 Suppose funders were to listen to Indigenous people and ask the right evaluation questions at the initial program development stages? Then evaluations may be of more significant benefit to Indigenous communities.…”

Section: Challeng E S To E Valuati On S From Commiss I Oning Pro Cementioning

confidence: 99%

The dichotomy of commissioning Indigenous health and wellbeing program evaluations: What the Funder wants vs what the Community needs

Finlay

Cargo

Smith

et al. 2021

Health Prom J of Aust

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

There are multiple systemic structural barriers that result in health and wellbeing inequities experienced by Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples (hereafter referred to as Indigenous). The recent Overcoming Indigenous Disadvantage 2020 report highlights some of these barriers, emphasising the importance of addressing the social determinants and cultural determinants of health by delivering evidence-based and culturally responsive health programs and initiatives. 1 While is it estimated that $5.9 billion (AUS) is spent annually on Indigenous health programs and services in Australia, there is scant evidence to illustrate what works (or does not work), for who and why. 2,3 A mapping exercise of Indigenous-specific programs in Australia reported that of 1082 programs delivered, over 90% were not evaluated to assess whether programs achieved their goals and objectives. 3 Also, it is reported that only a few evaluations used culturally appropriate methods for assessing program effectiveness. 3 Recently, there have been a growing number of robust evaluations that are culturally responsive, from which we can learn. These have important implications that can guide the commissioning of future evaluations.

show abstract

“…This was followed in 2017 by the Productivity Commission appointing an Indigenous Policy Evaluation Commissioner and the whole-of-government Indigenous evaluation strategy proposal by the Productivity Commission in 2019. This period has also coincided with increased conceptual research [9] and the development of several evaluation tools for use in Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander contexts, including the 'Ngaa-bi-nya Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander framework' and Lowitja 'Evaluation framework to improve Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander health' [10][11][12][13].…”

Section: Evaluation Practice In Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islandermentioning

confidence: 99%

Walking the talk: evaluating the alignment between Australian governments’ stated principles for working in Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander health contexts and health evaluation practice

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Stated principles in government policy documents serve as a set of values outlining how governments intend to work. As such, health planning principles should be reflected in health policy across the cycle of planning, implementation and evaluation. Such principles should be reflected in the process of governments commissioning and funding evaluation, and in the work of those commissioned to do evaluation on behalf of governments. Methods We reviewed health planning policy documents to identify principles Australian State and Territory and National governments stated as being important to the work they do within Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander health contexts. Evaluation tenders and reports relating to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander health policy, programs and service for the period 1-Jan-2007 to 1-Jan-2017 were retrieved and assessed as to whether they embedded principles governments state as important. Results In Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander health planning policy contexts, Australian governments outline shared responsibility, cultural competence, engagement, partnership, capacity building, equity, a holistic concept of health, accountability, and evidence-based as fundamental principles that will underpin the work they will do. In total, we identified 390 publicly advertised evaluation tenders, but were only able to retrieve 18 tenders and 97 reports. Despite strong rhetoric placing importance on the abovementioned principles, these were not consistently embedded in tenders released by government commissioners, nor in reports largely commissioned by governments. Principles most widely incorporated in documents were those corresponding to Closing the Gap - accountability, evidence-based and equity. Principles of holistic concept of health, capacity building, cultural competence and partnership do not appear well applied in evaluation practice. Conclusion Notwithstanding the tensions and criticism of current practice that sees dominant governments policing Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander populations and defining what principles should inform health policy and evaluation practice, this paper reveals shortcomings in current evaluation practice. Firstly, this paper reveals a lack of transparency about current practice, with only 2% of tenders and 25% of reports in the public domain. Secondly, this paper reveals that governments do not ‘walk the talk’, particularly when it comes to principles relating to Aboriginal participation in health.

show abstract

Strategies to support culturally safe health and wellbeing evaluations in Indigenous settings in Australia and New Zealand: a concept mapping study

Cited by 15 publications

References 30 publications

Prioritizing Built Environmental Factors to Tackle Chronic and Infectious Diseases in Remote Northern Territory (NT) Communities of Australia: A Concept Mapping Study

Prioritizing Built Environmental Factors to Tackle Chronic and Infectious Diseases in Remote Northern Territory (NT) Communities of Australia: A Concept Mapping Study

The dichotomy of commissioning Indigenous health and wellbeing program evaluations: What the Funder wants vs what the Community needs

Walking the talk: evaluating the alignment between Australian governments’ stated principles for working in Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander health contexts and health evaluation practice

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About