Assessing the quality of health research from an Indigenous perspective: the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander quality appraisal tool.

Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people Australia Indigenous Indigenous epistemologies Meta-syntheses Quality appraisal Systematic reviews

Journal

BMC medical research methodology
ISSN: 1471-2288
Titre abrégé: BMC Med Res Methodol
Pays: England
ID NLM: 100968545

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
10 04 2020
Historique:
received: 29 04 2019
accepted: 26 03 2020
entrez: 12 4 2020
pubmed: 12 4 2020
medline: 22 6 2021
Statut: epublish

Résumé

The lack of attention to Indigenous epistemologies and, more broadly, Indigenous values in primary research, is mirrored in the standardised critical appraisal tools used to guide evidence-based practice and systematic reviews and meta-syntheses. These critical appraisal tools offer no guidance on how validity or contextual relevance should be assessed for Indigenous populations and cultural contexts. Failure to tailor the research questions, design, analysis, dissemination and knowledge translation to capture understandings that are specific to Indigenous peoples results in research of limited acceptability and benefit and potentially harms Indigenous peoples. A specific Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Quality Appraisal Tool is needed to address this gap. The Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Quality Appraisal Tool (QAT) was developed using a modified Nominal Group and Delphi Techniques and the tool's validity, reliability, and feasibility were assessed over three stages of independent piloting. National and international research guidelines were used as points of reference. Piloting of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander QAT with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander and non-Indigenous experts led to refinement of the tool. The Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander QAT consists of 14 questions that assess the quality of health research from an Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander perspective. The questions encompass setting appropriate research questions; community engagement and consultation; research leadership and governance; community protocols; intellectual and cultural property rights; the collection and management of research material; Indigenous research paradigms; a strength-based approach to research; the translation of findings into policy and practice; benefits to participants and communities involved; and capacity strengthening and two-way learning. Outcomes from the assessment of the tool's validity, reliability, and feasibility were overall positive. This is the first tool to appraise research quality from the perspective of Indigenous peoples. Through the uptake of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander QAT we hope to improve the quality and transparency of research with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples, with the potential for greater improvements in Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander health and wellbeing.

Sections du résumé

BACKGROUND
The lack of attention to Indigenous epistemologies and, more broadly, Indigenous values in primary research, is mirrored in the standardised critical appraisal tools used to guide evidence-based practice and systematic reviews and meta-syntheses. These critical appraisal tools offer no guidance on how validity or contextual relevance should be assessed for Indigenous populations and cultural contexts. Failure to tailor the research questions, design, analysis, dissemination and knowledge translation to capture understandings that are specific to Indigenous peoples results in research of limited acceptability and benefit and potentially harms Indigenous peoples. A specific Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Quality Appraisal Tool is needed to address this gap.
METHOD
The Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Quality Appraisal Tool (QAT) was developed using a modified Nominal Group and Delphi Techniques and the tool's validity, reliability, and feasibility were assessed over three stages of independent piloting. National and international research guidelines were used as points of reference. Piloting of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander QAT with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander and non-Indigenous experts led to refinement of the tool.
RESULTS
The Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander QAT consists of 14 questions that assess the quality of health research from an Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander perspective. The questions encompass setting appropriate research questions; community engagement and consultation; research leadership and governance; community protocols; intellectual and cultural property rights; the collection and management of research material; Indigenous research paradigms; a strength-based approach to research; the translation of findings into policy and practice; benefits to participants and communities involved; and capacity strengthening and two-way learning. Outcomes from the assessment of the tool's validity, reliability, and feasibility were overall positive.
CONCLUSION
This is the first tool to appraise research quality from the perspective of Indigenous peoples. Through the uptake of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander QAT we hope to improve the quality and transparency of research with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples, with the potential for greater improvements in Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander health and wellbeing.

Identifiants

pubmed: 32276606
doi: 10.1186/s12874-020-00959-3
pii: 10.1186/s12874-020-00959-3
pmc: PMC7147059
doi:

Types de publication

Journal Article Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't

Langues

eng

Sous-ensembles de citation

IM

Pagination

79

Subventions

Organisme : National Health and Medical Research Council
ID : NHMRC No 1061242
Pays : International

Références

J Epidemiol Community Health. 2010 Jul;64(7):643-4
pubmed: 19996361
Aust J Prim Health. 2014;20(3):266-72
pubmed: 23755824
BMJ. 1995 Aug 5;311(7001):376-80
pubmed: 7640549
BMC Health Serv Res. 2012 Jun 08;12:143
pubmed: 22682035
Aust N Z J Public Health. 2001 Jun;25(3):197-202
pubmed: 11494986

Auteurs

Stephen Harfield (S)

Wardliparingga Aboriginal Health Research Unit, South Australian Health and Medical Research Institute, PO Box 11060, Adelaide, South Australia, 5001, Australia. stephen.harfield@sahmri.com.
School of Public Health, The University of Adelaide, Adelaide, Australia. stephen.harfield@sahmri.com.

Odette Pearson (O)

Wardliparingga Aboriginal Health Research Unit, South Australian Health and Medical Research Institute, PO Box 11060, Adelaide, South Australia, 5001, Australia.

Kim Morey (K)

Wardliparingga Aboriginal Health Research Unit, South Australian Health and Medical Research Institute, PO Box 11060, Adelaide, South Australia, 5001, Australia.

Elaine Kite (E)

Wardliparingga Aboriginal Health Research Unit, South Australian Health and Medical Research Institute, PO Box 11060, Adelaide, South Australia, 5001, Australia.

Karla Canuto (K)

Wardliparingga Aboriginal Health Research Unit, South Australian Health and Medical Research Institute, PO Box 11060, Adelaide, South Australia, 5001, Australia.

Karen Glover (K)

Wardliparingga Aboriginal Health Research Unit, South Australian Health and Medical Research Institute, PO Box 11060, Adelaide, South Australia, 5001, Australia.
Healthy Mothers, Babies and Children, South Australian Health and Medical Research Institute, Adelaide, Australia.
Murdoch Children's Research Institute, Melbourne, Australia.

Judith Streak Gomersall (JS)

School of Public Health, The University of Adelaide, Adelaide, Australia.
Healthy Mothers, Babies and Children, South Australian Health and Medical Research Institute, Adelaide, Australia.

Drew Carter (D)

School of Public Health, The University of Adelaide, Adelaide, Australia.

Carol Davy (C)

Wardliparingga Aboriginal Health Research Unit, South Australian Health and Medical Research Institute, PO Box 11060, Adelaide, South Australia, 5001, Australia.

Edoardo Aromataris (E)

Joanna Brigg Institute, The University of Adelaide, Adelaide, Australia.

Annette Braunack-Mayer (A)

Wardliparingga Aboriginal Health Research Unit, South Australian Health and Medical Research Institute, PO Box 11060, Adelaide, South Australia, 5001, Australia.
School of Public Health, The University of Adelaide, Adelaide, Australia.
Adelaide Health Technology Assessment, The University of Adelaide, Adelaide, Australia.
School of Health and Society, University of Wollongong, Wollongong, Australia.

Articles similaires

[Redispensing of expensive oral anticancer medicines: a practical application].

Lisanne N van Merendonk, Kübra Akgöl, Bastiaan Nuijen
1.00
Humans Antineoplastic Agents Administration, Oral Drug Costs Counterfeit Drugs

Smoking Cessation and Incident Cardiovascular Disease.

Jun Hwan Cho, Seung Yong Shin, Hoseob Kim et al.
1.00
Humans Male Smoking Cessation Cardiovascular Diseases Female
Humans United States Aged Cross-Sectional Studies Medicare Part C
1.00
Humans Yoga Low Back Pain Female Male

Classifications MeSH