Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander community experiences and recommendations for health and medical research: a mixed methods study

IF 8.5 2区 医学 Q1 MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL Medical Journal of Australia Pub Date : 2025-02-02 DOI:10.5694/mja2.52571
Felicity Collis, Kade Booth, Jamie Bryant, Tanika Ridgeway, Catherine Chamberlain, Jaquelyne Hughes, Kalinda E Griffiths, Mark Wenitong, Peter O'Mara, Alex Brown, Sandra J Eades, Kelvin M Kong, Michelle Kennedy
{"title":"Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander community experiences and recommendations for health and medical research: a mixed methods study","authors":"Felicity Collis,&nbsp;Kade Booth,&nbsp;Jamie Bryant,&nbsp;Tanika Ridgeway,&nbsp;Catherine Chamberlain,&nbsp;Jaquelyne Hughes,&nbsp;Kalinda E Griffiths,&nbsp;Mark Wenitong,&nbsp;Peter O'Mara,&nbsp;Alex Brown,&nbsp;Sandra J Eades,&nbsp;Kelvin M Kong,&nbsp;Michelle Kennedy","doi":"10.5694/mja2.52571","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div>\n \n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Objective</h3>\n \n <p>To describe Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities’ processes, positioning and experiences of health and medical research and their recommendations.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Design</h3>\n \n <p>A cross-sectional online and paper-based survey.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Setting, participants</h3>\n \n <p>Representatives from Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander health services and community-controlled organisations in Australia.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Main outcome measures</h3>\n \n <p>Responses to a 33-item mixed methods survey that explored communities’ positioning and processes relating to health and medical research and their experiences of health and medical research in the previous 5 years. Recommendations for improving health and medical research were elicited via two open-ended questions.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Results</h3>\n \n <p>Fifty-one community representatives nationally responded to the survey. Most representatives reported feeling slightly or very positive about research (37, 73%). More than half (33, 65%) reported having formal governance processes, and two-thirds of those without governance processes were interested in establishing such processes (12, 67%). Almost half reported that research has sometimes or never had benefit (25, 49%). Ethical principles that were most often reported as essential included those relating to sharing results back with community (45, 88%), translating research into policy and practice (37, 73%), employing Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander staff (37, 73%), Indigenous data sovereignty and governance (36, 71%) and research agreements (35, 69%). Community representatives reported being approached frequently and in the later stages of research, with little input during the development and design stages of research. Most representatives reported that their communities had participated in Indigenous-led research (39, 76%). Community representatives highlighted the need for appropriate resourcing and funding to drive and lead their own research agendas.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Conclusion</h3>\n \n <p>Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities continue to have negative experiences of research despite four decades of advocating for control, ownership and leadership of health and medical research. Researchers, funding bodies and institutions must examine current funding and research structures that reinforce current practices, to ensure transparency and accountability to communities by repositioning and giving power to communities to direct and lead their own health and medical research agendas.</p>\n </section>\n </div>","PeriodicalId":18214,"journal":{"name":"Medical Journal of Australia","volume":"222 S2","pages":"S6-S15"},"PeriodicalIF":8.5000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.5694/mja2.52571","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Medical Journal of Australia","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.5694/mja2.52571","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objective

To describe Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities’ processes, positioning and experiences of health and medical research and their recommendations.

Design

A cross-sectional online and paper-based survey.

Setting, participants

Representatives from Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander health services and community-controlled organisations in Australia.

Main outcome measures

Responses to a 33-item mixed methods survey that explored communities’ positioning and processes relating to health and medical research and their experiences of health and medical research in the previous 5 years. Recommendations for improving health and medical research were elicited via two open-ended questions.

Results

Fifty-one community representatives nationally responded to the survey. Most representatives reported feeling slightly or very positive about research (37, 73%). More than half (33, 65%) reported having formal governance processes, and two-thirds of those without governance processes were interested in establishing such processes (12, 67%). Almost half reported that research has sometimes or never had benefit (25, 49%). Ethical principles that were most often reported as essential included those relating to sharing results back with community (45, 88%), translating research into policy and practice (37, 73%), employing Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander staff (37, 73%), Indigenous data sovereignty and governance (36, 71%) and research agreements (35, 69%). Community representatives reported being approached frequently and in the later stages of research, with little input during the development and design stages of research. Most representatives reported that their communities had participated in Indigenous-led research (39, 76%). Community representatives highlighted the need for appropriate resourcing and funding to drive and lead their own research agendas.

Conclusion

Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities continue to have negative experiences of research despite four decades of advocating for control, ownership and leadership of health and medical research. Researchers, funding bodies and institutions must examine current funding and research structures that reinforce current practices, to ensure transparency and accountability to communities by repositioning and giving power to communities to direct and lead their own health and medical research agendas.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
土著和托雷斯海峡岛民社区保健和医学研究的经验和建议:一项混合方法研究。
目的:介绍土著和托雷斯海峡岛民社区卫生和医学研究的进程、定位和经验及其建议。设计:一个横断面的在线和纸质调查。背景,参与者:来自澳大利亚土著和托雷斯海峡岛民保健服务机构和社区控制组织的代表。主要结果测量:对33项混合方法调查的回应,该调查探讨了社区在卫生和医学研究方面的定位和过程,以及他们在过去5年的卫生和医学研究经验。关于改善健康和医学研究的建议是通过两个开放式问题提出的。结果:全国51个社区代表回应了调查。大多数代表报告对研究感到轻微或非常积极(37.73%)。超过一半(33,65%)报告有正式的治理过程,而没有治理过程的三分之二对建立这样的过程感兴趣(12,67%)。几乎一半的人报告说,研究有时或从未有过好处(25.49%)。最常被认为至关重要的伦理原则包括与社区分享成果(45.88%)、将研究转化为政策和实践(37.73%)、雇用土著和托雷斯海峡岛民员工(37.73%)、土著数据主权和治理(36.71%)以及研究协议(35.69%)相关的伦理原则。社区代表报告说,在研究的后期阶段经常与他们接触,在研究的发展和设计阶段几乎没有投入。大多数代表报告说,他们的社区参与了土著领导的研究(39.76%)。社区代表强调需要适当的资源和资金来推动和领导他们自己的研究议程。结论:尽管四十年来土著和托雷斯海峡岛民社区一直倡导控制、拥有和领导卫生和医学研究,但他们在研究方面的经历仍然很消极。研究人员、供资机构和机构必须审查加强当前做法的现有供资和研究结构,通过重新定位社区并赋予社区指导和领导其自身卫生和医学研究议程的权力,确保社区的透明度和问责制。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Medical Journal of Australia
Medical Journal of Australia 医学-医学:内科
CiteScore
9.40
自引率
5.30%
发文量
410
审稿时长
3-8 weeks
期刊介绍: The Medical Journal of Australia (MJA) stands as Australia's foremost general medical journal, leading the dissemination of high-quality research and commentary to shape health policy and influence medical practices within the country. Under the leadership of Professor Virginia Barbour, the expert editorial team at MJA is dedicated to providing authors with a constructive and collaborative peer-review and publication process. Established in 1914, the MJA has evolved into a modern journal that upholds its founding values, maintaining a commitment to supporting the medical profession by delivering high-quality and pertinent information essential to medical practice.
期刊最新文献
Data for Equity: Can Linked Administrative Data Inform Pathways to More Equitable Child Health? A Diagnostic Headache. Victorian Public Hospitals Go 100% Renewable: Now Let's Replace Gas and Embrace Reusable Equipment. Antidepressant Prescribing in Australian Primary Care: Time to Reevaluate. Ngalaiya Boorai Gabara Budbut: A Qualitative Study With Primary Care Providers to Understand Perceived Needs, Enablers, Barriers and Opportunities to Strengthen Care.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1