TY - JOUR
T1 - Systematic review to inform prevention and management of chronic disease for Indigenous Australians
T2 - Overview and priorities
AU - Gomersall, Judith Streak
AU - Canuto, Karla
AU - Aromataris, Edoardo
AU - Braunack-Mayer, Annette
AU - Brown, Alex
N1 - Publisher Copyright:
© 2015 Public Health Association of Australia.
PY - 2016/2/1
Y1 - 2016/2/1
N2 - Objective: To describe the main characteristics of systematic reviews addressing questions of chronic disease and related risk factors for Indigenous Australians. Methods: We searched databases for systematic reviews meeting inclusion criteria. Two reviewers assessed quality and extracted characteristics using pre-defined tools. Results: We identified 14 systematic reviews. Seven synthesised evidence about health intervention effectiveness; four addressed chronic disease or risk factor prevalence; and six conducted critical appraisal as per current best practice. Only three reported steps to align the review with standards for ethical research with Indigenous Australians and/or capture Indigenous-specific knowledge. Most called for more high-quality research. Conclusion: Systematic review is an under-utilised method for gathering evidence to inform chronic disease prevention and management for Indigenous Australians. Relevance of future systematic reviews could be improved by: 1) aligning questions with community priorities as well as decision maker needs; 2) involvement of, and leadership by, Indigenous researchers with relevant cultural and contextual knowledge; iii) use of critical appraisal tools that include traditional risk of bias assessment criteria and criteria that reflect Indigenous standards of appropriate research. Implications: Systematic review method guidance, tools and reporting standards are required to ensure alignment with ethical obligations and promote rigor and relevance.
AB - Objective: To describe the main characteristics of systematic reviews addressing questions of chronic disease and related risk factors for Indigenous Australians. Methods: We searched databases for systematic reviews meeting inclusion criteria. Two reviewers assessed quality and extracted characteristics using pre-defined tools. Results: We identified 14 systematic reviews. Seven synthesised evidence about health intervention effectiveness; four addressed chronic disease or risk factor prevalence; and six conducted critical appraisal as per current best practice. Only three reported steps to align the review with standards for ethical research with Indigenous Australians and/or capture Indigenous-specific knowledge. Most called for more high-quality research. Conclusion: Systematic review is an under-utilised method for gathering evidence to inform chronic disease prevention and management for Indigenous Australians. Relevance of future systematic reviews could be improved by: 1) aligning questions with community priorities as well as decision maker needs; 2) involvement of, and leadership by, Indigenous researchers with relevant cultural and contextual knowledge; iii) use of critical appraisal tools that include traditional risk of bias assessment criteria and criteria that reflect Indigenous standards of appropriate research. Implications: Systematic review method guidance, tools and reporting standards are required to ensure alignment with ethical obligations and promote rigor and relevance.
KW - Indigenous Australian health
KW - chronic disease
KW - systematic review
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84956835530&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1111/1753-6405.12476
DO - 10.1111/1753-6405.12476
M3 - Article
SN - 1326-0200
VL - 40
SP - 22
EP - 29
JO - Australian and New Zealand Journal of Public Health
JF - Australian and New Zealand Journal of Public Health
IS - 1
ER -