Roxanne Bainbridge

Being, Knowing, and Doing: A Phronetic Approach to Constructing Grounded Theory With Aboriginal Australian Partners

Researchers working with Aboriginal Australian partners are confronted with an array of historical, social, and political complexities which make it difficult to come to theoretical and methodological decisions. In this article, we describe a culturally safe and respectful framework that maintains the intellectual and theoretical rigor expected of academic research. As an Aboriginal woman and two non-Aboriginal women, we discuss the arguments and some of the challenges of using grounded theory methods in Aboriginal Australian contexts, giving examples from our studies of Aboriginal empowerment processes. We argue that the ethics of care and responsibility embedded in Aboriginal research methodologies fit well with grounded theory studies of Aboriginal social processes. We maintain that theory development grounded in data provides useful insights into the processes for raising the health, well-being, and prosperity of Aboriginal Australians.

Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander maternal and child health and wellbeing: a systematic search of programs and services in Australian primary health care settings

BackgroundPersistent disparities in pregnancy and birth outcomes between Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander and other Australians evidence a need to prioritise responsive practice in Maternal Child Health (MCH). This study reviewed the existing knowledge output on Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander MCH programs and services with the objective to advance understanding of the current evidence base and inform MCH service development, including the identification of new research priorities.MethodsA systematic search of the electronic databases Informit, Proquest, PubMed, Scopus, Wiley, and Cinahl, and 9 relevant websites was undertaken for the period 1993–2012. The reference lists of MCH program reviews were hand-searched for additional relevant studies which met the eligibility criteria. The study designs of included publications were classified and the characteristics extracted and categorized. Evaluation quality was assessed using the Effective Public Health Practice Project (EPHPP) Quality Assessment Tool for Quantitative Studies and the Critical Appraisal Skills Program (CASP) tool for qualitative studies.ResultsTwenty-three search results were identified for inclusion, with the majority published in 2003–2012. Fifty two percent of publications reported on programs and services operating out of Aboriginal Community Controlled Health Organisations, with antenatal and postnatal care the main intervention type/s, and health promotion/education and advice/support the most common intervention component. Outcomes such as increased antenatal attendance and higher infant birth weights were reported in some intervention studies, however methodological quality varied considerably with quantitative studies typically rated weak.ConclusionThe prevalence of community controlled and/or community-based programs is significant given the health and wellbeing implications of self-determination. While the literature highlights the promise of many intervention models and program components used there are some significant gaps in the documentation and implementation of important MCH interventions. Similarly, while positive health outcomes were reported there are issues with key measures used and study quality. This review highlights the need to improve the quality of evaluations of MCH programs for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander women and to address the key evidence gaps in responding to their health and wellbeing needs.

No one’s discussing the elephant in the room: contemplating questions of research impact and benefit in Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Australian health research

BackgroundThere remains a concern that Indigenous Australians have been over-researched without corresponding improvements in their health; this trend is applicable to most Indigenous populations globally. This debate article has a dual purpose: 1) to open a frank conversation about the value of research to Indigenous Australian populations; and 2) to stimulate ways of thinking about potential resolutions to the lack of progress made in the Indigenous research benefit debate.DiscussionCapturing the meaning of research benefit takes the form of ethical value-oriented methodological considerations in the decision-making processes of Indigenous research endeavours. Because research practices come from Western knowledge bases, attaining such positions in research means reconciling both Indigenous and Western knowledge systems to produce new methodologies that guide planning, evaluating and monitoring of research practices as necessary. Increasingly, more sophisticated performance measures have been implemented to ensure academic impact and benefits are captured. Assessing societal and other non-academic impacts and benefits however, has not been accorded corresponding attention. Research reform has only focussed on research translation in more recent years. The research impact debate must take account of the various standards of accountability (to whom), impact priorities (for whom), positive and negative impacts, and biases that operate in describing impact and measuring benefit.SummaryA perennial question in Indigenous research discourse is whether the abundance of research conducted; purportedly to improve health, is justified and benefits Indigenous people in ways that are meaningful and valued by them. Different research stakeholders have different conceptions of the value and nature of research, its conduct, what it should achieve and the kinds of benefits expected. We need to work collaboratively and listen more closely to the voice of Indigenous Australians to better understand, demonstrate and measure health research benefits. The authors conclude that as an imperative, a systematic benefit assessment strategy that includes identification of research priorities and planning, monitoring and evaluation components needs to be developed and implemented across research projects. In Indigenous health research, this will often mean adopting a benefit-led approach by changing the way research is done and preferencing alternative research methodologies. As a point of departure to improving impact and reaching mutually beneficial outcomes for researchers and partners in Indigenous health research, we need to routinise the assessment of benefit from outset of research as one of the standards toward which we work.

The characteristics, implementation and effects of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander health promotion tools: a systematic literature search

BackgroundHealth promotion by and with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander (hereafter Indigenous) Australians is critically important given a wide gap in health parity compared to other Australians. The development and implementation of step-by-step guides, instruments, packages, frameworks or resources has provided a feasible and low-resource strategy for strengthening evidence-informed health promotion practice. Yet there has been little assessment of where and how these tools are implemented or their effectiveness. This paper reviews the characteristics, implementation and effects of Indigenous health promotion tools.MethodsIndigenous health promotion tools were identified through a systematic literature search including a prior scoping study, eight databases, references of other reviews and the authors’ knowledge (n = 1494). Documents in the peer reviewed and grey literature were included if they described or evaluated tools designed, recommended or used for strengthening Indigenous Australian health promotion. Eligible publications were entered into an Excel spreadsheet and documented tools classified according to their characteristics, implementation and effects. Quality was appraised using the Dictionary for Effective Public Health Practice Project (EPHPP) and Critical Appraisal Skills Program (CASP) tools for quantitative and qualitative studies respectively.ResultsThe review found that Indigenous health promotion tools were widely available. Of 74 publications that met inclusion criteria, sixty (81%) documented tools developed specifically for the Indigenous Australian population. All tools had been developed in reference to evidence; but only 22/74 (30%) publications specified intended or actual implementation, and only 11/74 (15%) publications evaluated impacts of the implemented tools. Impacts included health, environmental, community, organisational and health care improvements. The quality of impact evaluations was strong for only five (7%) studies.ConclusionsThe small number and generally moderate quality of implementation and evaluation studies means that little is known about how tools work to strengthen Indigenous health promotion practice. The findings suggest that rather than continuing to invest in tool development, practitioners, policy makers and researchers could evaluate the implementation and effects of existing tools and publish the results. There is a need for long-term investment in research to review the current use of health promotion tools and the factors that are likely to enhance their implementation.

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

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.

Responding to Indigenous Australian Sexual Assault: A Systematic Review of the Literature

Indigenous Australians experience a high prevalence of sexual assault, yet a regional sexual assault service found few Indigenous Australians accessed their services. This prompted exploration of how its services might be improved. A resultant systematic search of the literature is reported in this article. Seven electronic databases and seven websites were systematically searched for peer reviewed and gray literature documenting responses to the sexual assault of Indigenous Australians. These publications were then classified by response type and study type. Twenty-three publications met the inclusion criteria. They included studies of legal justice, media, and community-based and mainstream service responses for Indigenous survivors and perpetrators. We located program descriptions, measurement, and descriptive research, but no intervention studies. There is currently insufficient evidence to confidently prescribe what works to effectively respond to Indigenous Australian sexual assault. The study revealed an urgent need for researchers, Indigenous communities, and services to work together to develop the evidence base.

Evaluating Research Impact: The Development of a Research for Impact Tool

Introduction This paper examines the process of developing a Research for Impact Tool in the contexts of general fiscal constraint, increased competition for funding, perennial concerns about the over-researching of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander issues without demonstrable benefits as well as conceptual and methodological difficulties of evaluating research impact. The aim is to highlight the challenges and opportunities involved in evaluating research impact to serve as resource for potential users of the research for impact tool and others interested in assessing the impact of research. Materials and methods A combination of literature reviews, workshops with researchers, and reflections by project team members and partners using participatory snowball techniques. Results Assessing research impact is perceived to be difficult, akin to the so-called “wicked problem,” but not impossible. Heuristic and collaborative approach to research that takes the expectations of research users, research participants and the funders of research offers a pragmatic solution to evaluating research impact. The logic of the proposed Research for Impact Tool is based on the understanding that the value of research is to create evidence and/or products to support smarter decisions so as to improve the human condition. Research is, therefore, of limited value unless the evidence created is used to make smarter decisions for the betterment of society. A practical way of approaching research impact is, therefore, to start with the decisions confronting decision makers whether they are government policymakers, industry, professional practitioners, or households and the extent to which the research supports them to make smarter policy and practice decisions and the knock-on consequences of doing so. Embedded at each step in the impact planning and tracking process is the need for appropriate mix of expertise, capacity enhancement, and collaborative participatory learning-by-doing approaches. Discussion The tool was developed in the context of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander research but the basic idea that the way to assess research impact is to start upfront with the information needs of decisions makers is equally applicable to research in other settings, both applied (horizontal) and basic (vertical) research. The tool will be further tested and evaluated with researchers over the next 2 years (2016/17). The decision by the Australian Government to include ‘industry engagement’ and ‘impact’ as additions to the Excellence in Research for Australia (ERA) quality measures from 2018 makes the Research for Impact Tool a timely development. The wider challenge is to engage with major Australian research funding agencies to ensure consistent alignment and approaches across research users, communities, and funders in evaluating impact.

The quantity, quality and characteristics of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Australian mentoring literature: a systematic review.

BackgroundMentoring is a key predictor of empowerment and prospectively a game changer in the quest to improve health inequities. This systematic review reports on the state of evidence on mentoring for Indigenous Australians by identifying the quantity, nature, quality and characteristics of mentoring publications.MethodsThirteen databases were searched using specific search strings from 1983 - 2012. Grey literature was also canvassed. The resultant publications were mined to identify their outputs, nature, and quality. These were then conceptually mined for their characteristics to develop a model of mentoring that included the initiating environments, facilitating environments, operational strategies and outcomes.Results771 citations were identified; 37 full text publications met inclusion criteria and were assessed. Fifteen were eligible for review. Four of five original research publications used strong qualitative research designs. No publications were found before 1999; the largest proportion concentrated in 2011 (n = 4). Facilitating environments included: mapping participants’ socio-cultural and economic context; formal mentoring practices with internal flexibility; voluntary participation; integrated models with wrap-around services; mentor/staff competencies; and sustained funding. Mentoring strategies comprised: holistic scaffolding approaches; respectful, trusting, one-on-one mentoring relationships; knowledgeable mentors; regular contact; longer-term relationships and exit strategies; culturally-tailored programs; personal and social development opportunities; and specialised skills and learning opportunities. Outcomes varied in accordance to program aims and included improvements in aspects of education and employment, offending behaviours, relationships, and personal, social and professional development.ConclusionLittle research explored the effectiveness of mentoring, captured its impact qualitatively or quantitatively, developed appropriate measures or assessed its cost-effectiveness. There is a real need to evaluate programs particularly in terms of outcomes and, given there were no economic evaluations, costs. Commitments to improving Indigenous Australian mentoring rely on changes to funding structures and attitudes toward research. There was insufficient evidence to confidently prescribe a best practice model. Sufficient frequency of qualitative reporting between publications concluded that mentoring is a valuable empowerment strategy in the areas of health and wellbeing, education and employment and as a remedial and preventative measure in reducing offending behaviours. An evidence-informed mentoring model would take into account the key findings of the review.

Building Indigenous Australian research capacity.

Abstract Objectives: To build individual Indigenous research capacity and strengthen the capability of health research programmes to be culturally and ethically inclusive of Indigenous Australians in public health research. Methods: In order to facilitate optimal participation and in recognition of the differing levels of research experience and knowledge held within this community of practice, an inclusive and culturally appropriate mixed methods approach with influences from action research and Indigenous research principles was undertaken. Results: Over the duration of the project, participants improved their research outcomes as measured by a range of factors including publications, completion of degrees and retention of project members. Conclusions: Provision of an Indigenous led, culturally appropriate system of infrastructure and support centred on capacity building is effective in strengthen the inclusion of Indigenous Australians in research.

Organisational systems’ approaches to improving cultural competence in healthcare: a systematic scoping review of the literature

IntroductionHealthcare organisations serve clients from diverse Indigenous and other ethnic and racial groups on a daily basis, and require appropriate client-centred systems and services for provision of optimal healthcare. Despite advocacy for systems-level approaches to cultural competence, the primary focus in the literature remains on competency strategies aimed at health promotion initiatives, workforce development and student education. This paper aims to bridge the gap in available evidence about systems approaches to cultural competence by systematically mapping key concepts, types of evidence, and gaps in research.MethodsA literature search was completed as part of a larger systematic search of evaluations and measures of cultural competence interventions in health care in Canada, the United States, Australia and New Zealand. Seventeen peer-reviewed databases, 13 websites and clearinghouses, and 11 literature reviews were searched from 2002 to 2015. Overall, 109 studies were found, with 15 evaluating systems-level interventions or describing measurements. Thematic analysis was used to identify key implementation principles, intervention strategies and outcomes reported.ResultsTwelve intervention and three measurement studies met our inclusion criteria. Key principles for implementing systems approaches were: user engagement, organisational readiness, and delivery across multiple sites. Two key types of intervention strategies to embed cultural competence within health systems were: audit and quality improvement approaches and service-level policies or strategies. Outcomes were found for organisational systems, the client/practitioner encounter, health, and at national policy level.Discussion and implicationsWe could not determine the overall effectiveness of systems-level interventions to reform health systems because interventions were context-specific, there were too few comparative studies and studies did not use the same outcome measures. However, examined together, the intervention and measurement principles, strategies and outcomes provide a preliminary framework for implementation and evaluation of systems-level interventions to improve cultural competence. Identified gaps in the literature included a need for cost and effectiveness studies of systems approaches and explication of the effects of cultural competence on client experience. Further research is needed to explore the extent to which cultural competence improves health outcomes and reduces ethnic and racially-based healthcare disparities.