Search

This study reports on the development and evaluation of a rating tool to assess the scientific utility and cultural appropriateness of community-level indicators for application with Indigenous populations. Indicator criteria proposed by the U.S. Institute of Medicine were culturally adapted through reviewing the literature and consultations with academic and Indigenous stakeholders. Pre-testing and collaborator feedback drove the iterative development of the tool with stakeholder groups in Canada, Aotearoa/New Zealand, and Australia. Pilot testing with 17 raters across countries involved rating the same selection of six health and social indicators using a six-point ordinal scale. The final version of the rating tool includes 16 questions within three criterion domains: "importance," "soundness," and "viability." Academic and community stakeholder review established face and content validity. The indicator rating tool demonstrated good internal consistency and excellent inter-rater reliability for two of three pilot testing groups. Use of this instrument can strengthen collaborative research planning and evaluation with Indigenous communities through selection of relevant and culturally appropriate indicators for application to public health research, prevention programmes, and health and social policy.

Health and social indicators that capture the distinct historical, social, and cultural contexts of Indigenous communities can play an important role in informing the planning and delivery of community interventions. There is currently considerable interest in cataloguing and vetting meaningful community-level health and social indicators that could be applied to research and health promotion activities in Indigenous communities in Australia, Canada, and New Zealand, inclusive of conventional indicators as well as measures developed specifically for use in or with Indigenous communities. To avoid haphazard selection of indicators, and to assure the comprehensiveness and relevance of any given set of indicators, a framework that can accommodate and conceptually classify indicators representing a full range of domains is required. We report here on the development of a conceptual framework, by which Indigenous community indicators, and more general community-level social indicators, can be sorted, catalogued, and systematically classified within four hierarchical levels. The indicator framework was developed across Canada, Australia and New Zealand in consultation with academic researchers and Indigenous community stakeholders, building from established health and social indicator systems. The Indigenous indicator framework permits Indigenous communities, public health researchers, and funding agencies to compare and select the most appropriate indicators for application in specific contexts from the multitude of existing indicators.

Background: In recent decades, financial investment has been made in health-related programs and services to overcome inequities and improve Indigenous people's wellbeing in Australia and New Zealand. Despite policies aiming to 'close the gap', limited evaluation evidence has informed evidence-based policy and practice. Indigenous leaders have called for evaluation stakeholders to align their practices with Indigenous approaches. Methods: This study aimed to strengthen culturally safe evaluation practice in Indigenous settings by engaging evaluation stakeholders, in both countries, in a participatory concept mapping study. Concept maps for each country were generated from multi-dimensional scaling and hierarchical cluster analysis. Results: The 12-cluster Australia map identifies four cluster regions: An Evaluation Approach that Honours Community; Respect and Reciprocity; Core Heart of the Evaluation; and Cultural Integrity of the Evaluation. The 11-cluster New Zealand map identifies four cluster regions: Authentic Evaluation Practice; Building Māori Evaluation Expertise; Integrity in Māori Evaluation; and Putting Community First. Both maps highlight the importance of cultural integrity in evaluation. Differences include the distinctiveness of the 'Respecting Language Protocols' concept in the Australia map in contrast to language being embedded within the cluster of 'Knowing Yourself as an Evaluator in a Māori Evaluation Context' in the New Zealand map. Participant ratings highlight the importance of all clusters with some relatively more difficult to achieve, in practice. Notably, the 'Funding Responsive to Community Needs and Priorities' and 'Translating Evaluation Findings to Benefit Community' clusters were rated the least achievable, in Australia. The 'Conduct of the Evaluation' and the 'Prioritising Māori Interests' clusters were rated as least achievable in New Zealand. In both countries, clusters of strategies related to commissioning were deemed least achievable. Conclusions: The results suggest that the commissioning of evaluation is crucial as it sets the stage for whether evaluations: reflect Indigenous interests, are planned in ways that align with Indigenous ways of working and are translated to benefit Indigenous communities Identified strategies align with health promotion principles and relational accountability values of Indigenous approaches to research. These findings may be relevant to the commissioning and conduct of Indigenous health program evaluations in developed nations. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This study reports on the development and evaluation of a rating tool to assess the scientific utility and cultural appropriateness of community-level indicators for application with Indigenous populations. Indicator criteria proposed by the U.S. Institute of Medicine were culturally adapted through reviewing the literature and consultations with academic and Indigenous stakeholders. Pre-testing and collaborator feedback drove the iterative development of the tool with stakeholder groups in Canada, Aotearoa/New Zealand, and Australia. Pilot testing with 17 raters across countries involved rating the same selection of six health and social indicators using a six-point ordinal scale. The final version of the rating tool includes 16 questions within three criterion domains: importance, soundness, and viability. Academic and community stakeholder review established face and content validity. The indicator rating tool demonstrated good internal consistency and excellent inter-rater reliability for two of three pilot testing groups. Use of this instrument can strengthen collaborative research planning and evaluation with Indigenous communities through selection of relevant and culturally appropriate indicators for application to public health research, prevention programmes, and health and social policy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Health and social indicators that capture the distinct historical, social, and cultural contexts of Indigenous communities can play an important role in informing the planning and delivery of community interventions. There is currently considerable interest in cataloguing and vetting meaningful community-level health and social indicators that could be applied to research and health promotion activities in Indigenous communities in Australia, Canada, and New Zealand, inclusive of conventional indicators as well as measures developed specifically for use in or with Indigenous communities. To avoid haphazard selection of indicators, and to assure the comprehensiveness and relevance of any given set of indicators, a framework that can accommodate and conceptually classify indicators representing a full range of domains is required. We report here on the development of a conceptual framework, by which Indigenous community indicators, and more general community-level social indicators, can be sorted, catalogued, and systematically classified within four hierarchical levels. The indicator framework was developed across Canada, Australia and New Zealand in consultation with academic researchers and Indigenous community stakeholders, building from established health and social indicator systems. The Indigenous indicator framework permits Indigenous communities, public health researchers, and funding agencies to compare and select the most appropriate indicators for application in specific contexts from the multitude of existing indicators. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]