The Australian Indigenous Health Program

Implementation and impact of indigenous health curricula: a systematic review

“…The learners were mostly medical students or practitioners (undergraduate, graduate and postgraduate programmes) (17 studies) . Six studies reported from allied health and interprofessional settings .…”

“…The curriculum content focused on indigenous cultural protocols and practices in 19 studies, health disparities and inequities, and health status in 16 studies, and communication skills and health literacy in 12 studies. The most common learning methods used were: lecture or tutorial‐based teaching (17 studies); cultural or rural immersion (12 studies); video media (eight studies), and problem‐based learning or case‐based learning (five studies) . The most common methods of evaluation were pre‐ and post‐tests of learner knowledge (10 studies) and written learner evaluation (10 studies) …”

“…Thirteen studies evaluated the curriculum using a single‐design cross‐sectional test or post‐test, whereas 10 studies used a single‐group pre‐ and post‐test design . Eighteen studies evaluated single institutions, one study focused on two institutions and four focused on more than two institutions . Of the 15 studies that reported response rates, 10 cited rates of over 75% .…”

“…Of the 15 studies that reported response rates, 10 cited rates of over 75% . Seventeen studies used evaluation tools that enabled study participants to provide subjective reflections on the curriculum, whereas six studies used predetermined scales or tools to evaluate the curriculum . Most studies reported the internal structure and content of the evaluation tool that was used (20 and 22 studies, respectively).…”

“…Twenty studies presented descriptive analysis and three studies provided analysis beyond description . Twelve studies reported participant satisfaction, attitudes, perceptions, opinions and general facts as evaluation outcomes, six studies reported improvements in knowledge and skills of participants and five recorded changes in participants’ behaviours . Because of the limited high‐quality research addressing the research questions, and the paucity of data observations, an analysis of trends in concepts, by country or institution, and themes over time was not possible.…”