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)

Objective: To synthesise client perceptions of the unique characteristics and value of care provided in Aboriginal Community Controlled Health Organisations (ACCHOs) compared to mainstream/general practitioner services, and implications for improving access to quality, appropriate primary health care for Indigenous Australians. Method: Standardised systematic review methods with modification informed by ethical and methodological considerations in research involving Indigenous Australians. Results: Perceived unique valued characteristics of ACCHOs were: 1) accessibility, facilitated by ACCHOs welcoming social spaces and additional services; 2) culturally safe care; and 3) appropriate care, responsive to holistic needs. Conclusion: Provider‐client relationships characterised by shared understanding of clients' needs, Indigenous staff, and relationships between clients who share the same culture, are central to ACCHO clients' perceptions of ACCHOs' unique value. The client perceptions provide insights about how ACCHOs address socio‐economic factors that contribute to high levels of chronic disease in Indigenous communities, why mainstream PHC provider care cannot substitute for ACCHO care, and how to improve accessibility and quality of care in mainstream providers. Implications for public health: To increase utilisation of PHC services in Indigenous Australian communities, and help close the gaps between the health status of Indigenous and non‐Indigenous Australians, Indigenous community leaders and Australian governments should prioritise implementing effective initiatives to support quality health care provision by ACCHOs.

Background Governments use a variety of processes to incorporate public perspectives into policymaking, but few studies have evaluated these processes from participants' point of view.Objective The objective of this study was twofold: to understand the perspectives of selected stakeholders with regard to involvement processes used by Australian Advisory Committees to engage the public and patients; and to identify barriers and facilitators to participation.Design Twelve semi-structured interviews were conducted with representatives of different stakeholder groups involved in health technology funding decisions in Australia. Data were collected and analysed using a theoretical framework created by Rowe and Frewer, but adapted to more fully acknowledge issues of power and influence.

Why is pain still under-treated in the emergency department? Two new hypotheses Bioethics, 2016; 30(3):195-202 © 2015 John Wiley & Sons Ltd This is the peer reviewed version of the following article: Drew Carter, Paul Sendziuk, Jaklin A. Eliott, Annette Braunack-Mayer Why is pain still under-treated in the emergency department? Two new hypotheses Bioethics, 2016; 30(3):195-202 Publishing in a subscription based journal Accepted (peer-reviewed) VersionSelf-archiving of the accepted version is subject to an embargo period of 12-24 months. The embargo period is 12 months for scientific, technical, and medical (STM) journals and 24 months for social science and humanities (SSH) journals following publication of the final article.The accepted version may be placed on:• the author's personal website • the author's company/institutional repository or archive • certain not for profit subject-based repositories such as PubMed Central as listed below Articles may be deposited into repositories on acceptance, but access to the article is subject to the embargo period. We canvass the literature testifying to this problem, the reasons why this problem is so important, and then some of the main hypotheses that have been advanced in explanation of the problem. We then argue for the plausibility of two new hypotheses: pain's under-treatment in the ED partly owes to (1) an epistemic preference for signs over symptoms on the part of some practitioners, and (2) some ED practices that themselves worsen pain by increasing patients' anxiety and fear. Our argumentation includes the 2 following logic. Some ED practitioners depart from formal guidance in basing their acute pain assessments on observable features rather than on patient reports of pain. This is potentially due to an epistemic preference for signs over symptoms which aims to circumvent intentional and/or unintentional misrepresentation on the part of patients. However, conducting pain assessments in line with this epistemic preference contributes to the under-treatment of pain in at least three respects, which we detail. Moreover, it may do little to help the practitioner circumvent any intentional misrepresentation on the part of the patient, as we explain.Second, we examine at least four ED practices that may be contributing to the under-treatment of pain by increasing patient anxiety and fear, which can worsen pain. These practices include the failure to provide orienting information and the partial objectification of patients required to problemsolve along lines pre-established by modern medical science. We conclude by touching on some potential solutions for ED practice.

BackgroundMeasures to improve the quality and sustainability of healthcare practice and provision have become a policy concern. In addition, the involvement of stakeholders in health policy decision-making has been advocated, as complex questions arise around the structure of funding arrangements in a context of limited resources. Using a case study of assisted reproductive technologies (ART), deliberative engagements with a range of stakeholder groups were held on the topic of how best to structure the distribution of Australian public funding in this domain.MethodsDeliberative engagements were carried out with groups of ART consumers, clinicians and community members. The forums were informed by a systematic review of ART treatment safety and effectiveness (focusing, in particular, on maternal age and number of treatment cycles), as well as by international policy comparisons, and ethical and cost analyses. Forum discussions were transcribed and subject to thematic analysis.ResultsEach forum demonstrated stakeholders’ capacity to understand concepts of choice under resource scarcity and disinvestment, and to countenance options for ART funding not always aligned with their interests. Deliberations in each engagement identified concerns around ‘equity’ and ‘patient responsibility’, culminating in a broad preference for (potential) ART subsidy restrictions to be based upon individual factors rather than maternal age or number of treatment cycles. Community participants were open to restrictions based upon measures of body mass index (BMI) and smoking status, while consumers and clinicians saw support to improve these factors as part of an ART treatment program, as distinct from a funding criterion. All groups advocated continued patient co-payments, with measures in place to provide treatment access to those unable to pay (namely, equity of access).ConclusionsDeliberations yielded qualitative, socially-negotiated evidence required to inform ethical, accountable policy decisions in the specific area of ART and health care more broadly. Notably, reductionist, deterministic characterizations of stakeholder ‘self-interest’ proved unfounded as each group sought to prioritise universal values (in particular, ‘equity’ and ‘responsibility’) over specific, within-group concerns. Our results - from an emotive case study in ART - highlight that evidence-informed disinvestment decision-making is feasible, and potentially less controversial than often presumed.