The Lowitja Institute: building a national strategic research agenda to improve the health of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples

Arabena, Kerry; Moodie, David

doi:10.5694/j.1326-5377.2011.tb03091.x

Cited by 14 publications

(12 citation statements)

References 2 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Closing the gap in Aboriginal disadvantage in Australia and beyond, will require significant long-term and collaborative effort in health research. While the approach taken by the Lowitja Institute has proved highly successful [ 10 ], Kimberley Aboriginal communities have not been involved in this process and there is no evidence to suggest that the achievement of a national approach to the issues raised in this paper is on the horizon [ 57 ].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The Lowitja Institute is Australia’s only Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander controlled health research organisation and is guided by the principles of the Indigenous Research Reform Agenda [ 1 , 10 ]. It has developed a research philosophy called the Facilitated Development Approach that identifies research priorities, works with communities to establish research considered desirable and commissions research in partnership with the communities concerned.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Aboriginal health research in the remote Kimberley: an exploration of perceptions, attitudes and concerns of stakeholders

Loughlin

Hadgraft

Atkinson

et al. 2014

BMC Health Serv Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundFor decades Indigenous peoples have argued for health research reform claiming methods used and results obtained often reflect the exploitative history of colonisation. In 2006 the Kimberley Aboriginal Health Planning Forum (KAHPF) Research Subcommittee (hereafter, the Subcommittee) was formed to improve research processes in the remote Kimberley region of north Western Australia. This paper explores the major perceptions, attitudes and concerns of stakeholders in the Subcommittee.MethodsQualitative analysis was carried out on data retrospectively collected from multiple evidentiary sources linked to the Subcommittee i.e. database, documents, interviews, review forms and emails from 1 January 2007 to 31 October 2013.ResultsFrom 1 January 2007 to 30 June 2013 the Subcommittee received 95 proposals, 57 (60%) driven by researchers based outside the region. Local stakeholders (22 from 12 different Kimberley organisations) raised concerns about 36 (38%) projects, 30 (83%) of which were driven by external researchers. Major concerns of local stakeholders were inadequate community consultation and engagement; burden of research on the region; negative impact of research practices; lack of demonstrable community benefit; and power and control of research. Major themes identified by external stakeholders (25 external researchers who completed the review form) were unanticipated difficulties with consultation processes; barriers to travel; perceiving research as a competing priority for health services and time-consuming ethics processes. External stakeholders also identified strategies for improving research practices in the Kimberley: importance of community support in building good relationships; employing local people; flexibility in research approaches; and importance of allocating sufficient time for consultation and data collection.ConclusionsHealth research in the Kimberley has improved in recent years, however significant problems remain. Prioritising research addressing genuine local needs is essential in closing the gap in Indigenous life expectancy. The long-term aim is for local health service connected researchers to identify priorities, lead, conduct and participate in the majority of local health research. For this to occur, a more radical move involving reconceptualising the research process is needed. Changes to institutional timeframes and funding processes could improve Indigenous and community-based research.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Aboriginal health research in the remote Kimberley: an exploration of perceptions, attitudes and concerns of stakeholders

Loughlin

Hadgraft

Atkinson

et al. 2014

BMC Health Serv Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Moreover, Cerasa87 reports a narrowing of the life expectancy gap based on an incorrect interpretation of the current estimates. On the same basis, Arabena and Moodie88 claim that the simultaneous improvement of both Indigenous life expectancy, as demonstrated by the most recent estimates, and also life expectancy for other Australians, undermine the potential of an agreed target to close the gap within a generation.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Closing the Gaps: competing estimates of Indigenous Australian life expectancy in the scientific literature

Rosenstock

Mukandi

Zwi

et al. 2013

Australian and New Zealand Journal of Public Health

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective: Closing the gap in life expectancy between Indigenous and other Australians within a generation is central to national Indigenous reform policy (Closing the Gap). Over time, various methods of estimating Indigenous life expectancy and with that, the life expectancy gap, have been adopted with differing, albeit non-comparable results. We present data on the extent of the gap and elucidate the pattern of use and interpretations of the different estimates of the gap, between 2007 and 2012.Methods: An extensive search was conducted for all peer-reviewed health publications citing estimates of and/or discussing the life expectancy of Indigenous Australians, for the period 2007–2012.Results: Five predominant patterns of citation of the gap estimates were identified: 20 years, 17 years, 15–20 years, 13 years, and 11.5 years for males and 9.7 years for females. Some authors misinterpret the most recent estimates as reflecting improvement from the 17-year figure, rather than the result of different methods of estimation. Support for the direct methods used to calculate Indigenous life expectancy is indicated.Conclusions and Implications: A specific estimate of the life expectancy gap has not been established among stakeholders in Indigenous health. Agreement on the magnitude of the gap is arguably needed in order to evaluate strategies aimed at improving health outcomes for Indigenous Australians. Moreover, measuring progress towards ‘closing the gap’ depends on the availability of comparable estimates, using the same techniques of measurement to assess changes over time.

show abstract

“…The CRCATH became the Cooperative Research Centre for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Health and then, since 2010, the Lowitja Institute — Australia's only Indigenous‐controlled health research organisation 2 . All three organisations have had a particular focus on collaboration and knowledge exchange and ensuring that research is translated into improved services and improved health for Indigenous people 2 . When she opened the second Congress Lowitja in Melbourne on 14 November 2012, Pat Anderson, chairperson of the Lowitja Institute, reflected on the many changes since 1997.…”

Section: Ethics and Collaborative Approaches To Indigenous Health Resmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Arabena and Moodie note that “despite all the research and the medical interventions spanning decades, improvements — where they occur — are incremental and trend up at a slower rate than for non‐Indigenous Australians” 2 . In many reviews, concerns have been expressed about the overemphasis on descriptive research rather than research evaluating interventions in Indigenous health 1 , 3 .…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Changing discourses in Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander health research, 1914‐2014

Thomas

Bainbridge

Tsey

2014

Medical Journal of Australia

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Summary Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people strongly assert that health research has contributed little to improving their health, in spite of its obvious potential. The health concerns of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people were largely ignored in early research published in the MJA, which reflected broader colonial history and racial discourses. This began to change with the demise of scientific racism, and changed policies and political campaigns for equal treatment of Indigenous people after the Second World War. In response to pressure from Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people and organisations, in parallel to broader political struggles for Indigenous rights since the 1970s, there have been significant and measurable changes to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander health research. Many of these changes have been about the ethics of health research. Increasingly, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander researchers, communities and organisations are now controlling and decolonising health research to better meet their needs, in collaboration with non‐Indigenous researchers and research organisations.

show abstract

The Lowitja Institute: building a national strategic research agenda to improve the health of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples

Cited by 14 publications

References 2 publications

Aboriginal health research in the remote Kimberley: an exploration of perceptions, attitudes and concerns of stakeholders

Aboriginal health research in the remote Kimberley: an exploration of perceptions, attitudes and concerns of stakeholders

Closing the Gaps: competing estimates of Indigenous Australian life expectancy in the scientific literature

Changing discourses in Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander health research, 1914‐2014

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About