CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 320Indigenous Health, Education, and RightsHealth Sciences Research and EducationMeta-analysis and systematic reviews

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 26 of the 27 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

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

Open access
Harfield, Stephen, Pearson, Odette, Morey, Kim, Kite, Elaine, Canuto, Karla, Glover, Karen, Gomersall, Judith Streak, Carter, Drew, Davy, Carol, Aromataris, Edoardo, Braunack-Mayer, Annette·2020·BMC Medical Research Methodology
DOI 10.1186/s12874-020-00959-3PMC PMC7147059
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

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.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1186/s12874-020-00959-3

Cites

26 of 26 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Figures

Fig. 1 Process of the Development of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander QAT
Fig. 1 Process of the Development of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander QATCC BY · PubMed Central
Fig. 2 The Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Quality Appraisal Tool
Fig. 2 The Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Quality Appraisal ToolCC BY · PubMed Central

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 27 references

Research works printed but not linked: 14

  1. Stubhben JD. Native Americans and political participation: a reference handbook. Santa Babara: ABC-CLIO; 2006.
  2. Canadian Institute of Health Research. CIHR guidelines for Health Research involving aboriginal people. Ottawa: Canadian Institutes of Health Research; 2007.
  3. Health Research Council of New Zealand. In: Purnel, editor. Guidelines for researchers on Health Research involving Máori. Auckland: Health Research Council of New Zealand; 2010.
  4. National Health and Medical Research Council. Values and ethics: guidelines for ethical conduct in aboriginal and Torres Strait islander Health Research. Canberra: Commonwealth of Australia; 2003.
  5. National Health and Medical Research Council. National Statement on ethical conduct in human research (updated May 2015). Canberra: Commonwealth of Australia; 2007.
  6. Australian Institute of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Studies, The Lowitja Institute. Researching right way: aboriginal and Torres Strait islander Health Research ethics: a domestic and international review. Melbourne: Cooperative Research Centre for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Health; 2013.
  7. Saini M. A systematic review of Western and aboriginal research designs : assessing validation to explore compatability and convergence. In. Prince George: National Collaborating Centre for Aboriginal Health; 2012.
  8. Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission. Chapter 3: the Northern Territory 'Emergency Response' intervention - a human rights analysis - part 1. The little children are sacred report and the announcement of the 'emergency measures'. In: Social Justice Report. Sydney: Paragon Australasia Group; 2007. p. 197–329.
  9. Indigenous Peoples' Health Research Centre. The ethics of research involving indigenous peoples - report of the indigenous Peoples' Health Research Centre to the interagency advisory panel of research ethics. Saskatchewan: Indigenous Peoples' Health Research Centre; 2004.
  10. Sherwood J. Do no harm: decolonising aboriginal health research. Sydney: University of New South Wales; 2010.
  11. Guy T, Fuller D, Pletsch C. Asset mapping: a handbook. Ottowa: Canadian Rural Partnership; 2002.
  12. King R, Brown A. Next steps for aboriginal Health Research: exploring how research can improve the health and wellbeing of aboriginal people in South Australia - final report in. Adelaide: Aboriginal Health Council of South Australia; 2015.
  13. UNESCO. Learning and knowing in indigenous societies today. Paris: UNESCO; 2009.
  14. MacLean S, Ritte R, Thorpe A, Ewen S, Arabena K. Assessing compliance with aboriginal and Torres Strait islander health research guidelines within systematic reviews. Austr Indigenous Health Bull. 2015;15(4):1–5.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Items 201–300 of 320

Related

See all

Metadata

Authors
Harfield, S., Pearson, O., Morey, K., Kite, E., Canuto, K., Glover, K., Gomersall, J. S., Carter, D., Davy, C., Aromataris, E., & Braunack-Mayer, A.
Affiliations
  • South Australian Health and Medical Research Institute (AU)
  • The University of Adelaide (AU)
Corresponding author
Harfield, Stephen
ORCID
Venue
BMC Medical Research Methodology
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Published
2020-04-10
Volume
20
Issue
1
Pages
79-79
ISSN
1471-2288 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1186/s12874-020-00959-3
PMC
PMC7147059
OpenAlex
W3015992259
Cited by
313
References
27
Citations by year
2026: 40 · 2025: 56 · 2024: 70 · 2023: 56 · 2022: 50 · 2021: 33 · 2020: 7
FWCI
20.21
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • BMC Medical Research Methodology (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • ResearchOnline - JCU (James Cook University) (submittedVersion)
  • Research Online (University of Wollongong) (submittedVersion)
  • Adelaide Research & Scholarship (AR&S) (University of Adelaide) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
  • Figshare (submittedVersion)
Funders
National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC No 1061242)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Health › Indigenous Health, Education, and Rights
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Health Sciences Research and Education
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Statistics, Probability and Uncertainty › Meta-analysis and systematic reviews
Keywords
Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander health, Indigenous research paradigm, critical appraisal tools, research quality assessment, Indigenous epistemologies, community participation, community protocols, knowledge translation, capacity building, two-way learning
MeSH terms
Australian Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples, Australia, Chronic Disease, Health Services Research, Health Services, Indigenous, Humans, Reproducibility of Results, Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review