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.(Continued on next page)

BackgroundIndigenous peoples often find it difficult to access appropriate mainstream primary health care services. Securing access to primary health care services requires more than just services that are situated within easy reach. Ensuring the accessibility of health care for Indigenous peoples who are often faced with a vast array of additional barriers including experiences of discrimination and racism, can be complex. This framework synthesis aimed to identify issues that hindered Indigenous peoples from accessing primary health care and then explore how, if at all, these were addressed by Indigenous health care services.MethodsTo be included in this framework synthesis papers must have presented findings focused on access to (factors relating to Indigenous peoples, their families and their communities) or accessibility of Indigenous primary health care services. Findings were imported into NVivo and a framework analysis undertaken whereby findings were coded to and then thematically analysed using Levesque and colleague’s accessibility framework.ResultsIssues relating to the cultural and social determinants of health such as unemployment and low levels of education influenced whether Indigenous patients, their families and communities were able to access health care. Indigenous health care services addressed these issues in a number of ways including the provision of transport to and from appointments, a reduction in health care costs for people on low incomes and close consultation with, if not the direct involvement of, community members in identifying and then addressing health care needs.ConclusionsIndigenous health care services appear to be best placed to overcome both the social and cultural determinants of health which hamper Indigenous peoples from accessing health care. Findings of this synthesis also suggest that Levesque and colleague’s accessibility framework should be broadened to include factors related to the health care system such as funding.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12939-016-0450-5) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

BackgroundThe increasing prevalence of chronic disease and even multiple chronic diseases faced by both developed and developing countries is of considerable concern. Many of the interventions to address this within primary healthcare settings are based on a chronic care model first developed by MacColl Institute for Healthcare Innovation at Group Health Cooperative.MethodsThis systematic literature review aimed to identify and synthesise international evidence on the effectiveness of elements that have been included in a chronic care model for improving healthcare practices and health outcomes within primary healthcare settings. The review broadens the work of other similar reviews by focusing on effectiveness of healthcare practice as well as health outcomes associated with implementing a chronic care model. In addition, relevant case series and case studies were also included.ResultsOf the 77 papers which met the inclusion criteria, all but two reported improvements to healthcare practice or health outcomes for people living with chronic disease. While the most commonly used elements of a chronic care model were self-management support and delivery system design, there were considerable variations between studies regarding what combination of elements were included as well as the way in which chronic care model elements were implemented. This meant that it was impossible to clearly identify any optimal combination of chronic care model elements that led to the reported improvements.ConclusionsWhile the main argument for excluding papers reporting case studies and case series in systematic literature reviews is that they are not of sufficient quality or generalizability, we found that they provided a more detailed account of how various chronic care models were developed and implemented. In particular, these papers suggested that several factors including supporting reflective healthcare practice, sending clear messages about the importance of chronic disease care and ensuring that leaders support the implementation and sustainability of interventions may have been just as important as a chronic care model’s elements in contributing to the improvements in healthcare practice or health outcomes for people living with chronic disease.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12913-015-0854-8) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

BackgroundIndigenous populations have poorer health outcomes compared to their non-Indigenous counterparts. The evolution of Indigenous primary health care services arose from mainstream health services being unable to adequately meet the needs of Indigenous communities and Indigenous peoples often being excluded and marginalised from mainstream health services. Part of the solution has been to establish Indigenous specific primary health care services, for and managed by Indigenous peoples. There are a number of reasons why Indigenous primary health care services are more likely than mainstream services to improve the health of Indigenous communities. Their success is partly due to the fact that they often provide comprehensive programs that incorporate treatment and management, prevention and health promotion, as well as addressing the social determinants of health. However, there are gaps in the evidence base including the characteristics that contribute to the success of Indigenous primary health care services in providing comprehensive primary health care. This systematic scoping review aims to identify the characteristics of Indigenous primary health care service delivery models.MethodThis systematic scoping review was led by an Aboriginal researcher, using the Joanna Briggs Institute Scoping Review Methodology. All published peer-reviewed and grey literature indexed in PubMed, EBSCO CINAHL, Embase, Informit, Mednar, and Trove databases from September 1978 to May 2015 were reviewed for inclusion. Studies were included if they describe the characteristics of service delivery models implemented within an Indigenous primary health care service. Sixty-two studies met the inclusion criteria. Data were extracted and then thematically analysed to identify the characteristics of Indigenous PHC service delivery models.ResultsCulture was the most prominent characteristic underpinning all of the other seven characteristics which were identified – accessible health services, community participation, continuous quality improvement, culturally appropriate and skilled workforce, flexible approach to care, holistic health care, and self-determination and empowerment.ConclusionWhile the eight characteristics were clearly distinguishable within the review, the interdependence between each characteristic was also evident. These findings were used to develop a new Indigenous PHC Service Delivery Model, which clearly demonstrates some of the unique characteristics of Indigenous specific models.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (10.1186/s12992-018-0332-2) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.