Health promotion aspires to work in empowering, participatory ways, with the goal of supporting people to increase control over their health. However, buried in this goal is an ethical tension: while increasing people's autonomy, health promotion also imposes a particular, health promotion-sanctioned version of what is good. This tension positions practitioners precariously, where the ethos of empowerment risks increasing health promotion's paternalistic control over people, rather than people's control over their own health. Herein we argue that this ethical tension is amplified in Indigenous Australia, where colonial processes of control over Indigenous lands, lives and cultures are indistinguishable from contemporary health promotion 'interventions'. Moreover, the potential stigmatisation produced in any paternalistic acts 'done for their own good' cannot be assumed to have evaporated within the self-proclaimed 'empowering' narratives of health promotion. This issue's guest editor's call for health promotion to engage 'with politics and with philosophical ideas about the state and the citizen' is particularly relevant in an Indigenous Australian context. Indigenous Australians continue to experience health promotion as a moral project of control through intervention, which contradicts health promotion's central goal of empowerment. Therefore, Indigenous health promotion is an invaluable site for discussion and analysis of health promotion's broader ethical tensions. Given the persistent and alarming Indigenous health inequalities, this paper calls for systematic ethical reflection in order to redress health promotion's general failure to reduce health inequalities experienced by Indigenous Australians.

The potential for health promotion through social networking sites (SNSs) is widely recognized. However, while health promotion prides itself in focusing on the social determinants of health, its partiality for persuading individuals to comply with health behaviours dominates the way health promotion utilizes SNSs. This paper contributes to an understanding of collaborative ways SNSs can work for health promotion agendas of self-determination and empowerment in an Indigenous Australia context. An ethnographic study was undertaken with Deadly Choices, an Indigenous-led health promotion initiative. The study involved participant observation of interactions on Deadly Choices SNSs between Deadly Choices and its online community members. Deadly Choices provides an example of SNSs providing a powerful tool to create a safe, inclusive and positive space for Indigenous people and communities to profile their healthy choices, according to Indigenous notions of health and identity. The study found five principles that underpin Deadly Choices' use of SNSs for health promotion. These are: create a dialogue; build community online and offline; incentivise healthy online engagement; celebrate Indigenous identity and culture; and prioritize partnerships. Deadly Choices SNSs empowers Indigenous people and communities to be health promoters themselves, which represents a power shift from health promotion practitioner to Indigenous people and communities and more broadly, an enactment of Indigenous self-determination on SNSs. Mainstream health promotion can learn from Indigenous health promotion practice regarding the use of SNSs for health promotion agendas.

In Australia, Indigenous people experience poor access to health care and the highest rates of morbidity and mortality of any population group. Despite modest improvements in recent years, concerns remains that Indigenous people have been over-researched without corresponding health improvements. Embedding Indigenous leadership, participation, and priorities in health research is an essential strategy for meaningful change for Indigenous people. To centralize Indigenous perspectives in research processes, a transformative shift away from traditional approaches that have benefited researchers and non-Indigenous agendas is required. This shift must involve concomitant strengthening of the research capacity of Indigenous and non-Indigenous researchers and research translators—all must teach and all must learn. However, there is limited evidence about how to strengthen systems and stakeholder capacity to participate in and lead continuous quality improvement (CQI) research in Indigenous primary health care, to the benefit of Indigenous people. This paper describes the collaborative development of, and principles underpinning, a research capacity strengthening (RCS) model in a national Indigenous primary health care CQI research network. The development process identified the need to address power imbalances, cultural contexts, relationships, systems requirements and existing knowledge, skills, and experience of all parties. Taking a strengths-based perspective, we harnessed existing knowledge, skills and experiences; hence our emphasis on capacity “strengthening”. New insights are provided into the complex processes of RCS within the context of CQI in Indigenous primary health care.

Continuous quality improvement (CQI) processes for improving clinical care and health outcomes have been implemented by primary health-care services, with resultant health-care impacts. But only 10–20% of gain in health outcomes is contributed by health-care services; a much larger share is determined by social and cultural factors. This perspective paper argues that health care and health outcomes can be enhanced through applying CQI as a systems approach to comprehensive primary health care. Referring to the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Australian context as an example, the authors provide a systems framework that includes strategies and conditions to facilitate evidence-based and local decision making by primary health-care services. The framework describes the integration of CQI vertically to improve linkages with governments and community members and horizontally with other sectors to influence the social and cultural determinants of health. Further, government and primary health-care service investment is required to support and extend integration and evaluation of CQI efforts vertically and horizontally.