BackgroundYouth peer-led interventions have become a popular way of sharing health information with young people and appear well suited to Indigenous community contexts. However, no systematic reviews focusing on Indigenous youth have been published. We conducted a systematic review to understand the range and characteristics of Indigenous youth-led health promotion projects implemented and their effectiveness.MethodsA systematic search of Medline, Embase, and ProQuest Social Sciences databases was conducted, supplemented by gray literature searches. Included studies focused on interventions where young Indigenous people delivered health information to age-matched peers.ResultsTwenty-four studies were identified for inclusion, based on 20 interventions (9 Australian, 4 Canadian, and 7 from the United States of America). Only one intervention was evaluated using a randomized controlled study design. The majority of evaluations took the form of pre–post studies. Methodological limitations were identified in a majority of studies. Study outcomes included improved knowledge, attitude, and behaviors.ConclusionCurrently, there is limited high quality evidence for the effectiveness of peer-led health interventions with Indigenous young people, and the literature is dominated by Australian-based sexual health interventions. More systematic research investigating the effectiveness of peer-led inventions is required, specifically with Indigenous populations. To improve health outcomes for Indigenous youth, greater knowledge of the mechanisms and context under which peer-delivered health promotion is effective in comparison to other methods of health promotion is needed.

Background: Sexually transmissible infection (STI) and blood-borne virus (BBV) diagnoses data are a core component of the Australian National Notifiable Diseases Surveillance System (NNDSS). However, the NNDSS data alone is not enough to understand STI and BBV burden among priority population groups, like Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people, because it lacks testing, treatment and management data. Here, we describe the processes involved in establishing a STI and BBV sentinel surveillance network representative of Aboriginal Community-Controlled Health Services (ACCHS)-known as the ATLAS network-to augment the NNDSS and to help us understand the burden of disease due to STI and BBV among Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples. Methods: Researchers invited participation from ACCHS in urban, regional and remote areas clustered in five clinical hubs across four Australian jurisdictions. Participation agreements were developed for each clinical hub and individual ACCHS. Deidentified electronic medical record (EMR) data relating to STI and BBV testing, treatment and management are collected passively from each ACCHS via the GRHANITE tm data extraction tool. These data are analysed centrally to inform 12 performance measures which are included in regular surveillance reports generated for each ACCHS and clinical hub.

Background Sexually transmissible infection (STI) and blood-borne virus (BBV) notification data is a mainstay of the Australian National Notifiable Diseases Surveillance System (NNDSS) and is a mandatory requirement in all Australian jurisdictions. The system focuses on STI and BBV diagnoses alone, without testing, treatment or management data, leaving major gaps in the understanding of epidemics, especially among priority populations like Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples. Further information is required to supplement the NNDSS to better understand epidemics, the impact of interventions and health care delivery against clinical guidelines. Here we describe the rationale, processes and expected outcomes of establishing a national STI and BBV sentinel surveillance network in Aboriginal primary care services—known as the ATLAS network.Methods Researchers invited participation and consultation with Aboriginal Community-Controlled Health Services (ACCHS) clustered in five clinical hubs across four jurisdictions, representative of urban, regional and remote regions. Site-specific participation agreements were developed for each clinical hub and individual ACCHS. De-identified electronic medical record (EMR) data relating to STI and BBV testing, treatment and care are collected passively from each health service via the GRHANITE tm data extraction tool. These data are analysed centrally to inform 12 performance indicators which are included in surveillance reports generated for each health service and clinical hub.Results The ATLAS network currently involves 29 ACCHS representing all five clinical hubs. The ATLAS network provides detailed surveillance reports to individual ACCHS as well as contributing to aggregate comparative analyses at the clinical hub, jurisdictional and national levels. Data derived from the ATLAS network is used to assess clinical practice within each site. Aggregated data will inform clinical guidelines and extend the research potential of participating ACCHS sites. The ATLAS infrastructure can be expanded to include other health services and potentially linked to other data sources using GRHANITE.Conclusions The ATLAS network will supplement the NNDSS and contribute to improved understanding of local, regional and national patterns of clinical care of STI and BBV to inform clinical practice, policy, and program-planning.

Background: Sexually transmissible infection (STI) and blood-borne virus (BBV) diagnoses data are a core component of the Australian National Notifiable Diseases Surveillance System (NNDSS). However, the NNDSS data alone is not enough to understand STI and BBV burden among priority population groups, like Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people, because it lacks testing, treatment and management data. Here, we describe the processes involved in establishing a STI and BBV sentinel surveillance network representative of Aboriginal Community-Controlled Health Services (ACCHS)—known as the ATLAS network—to augment the NNDSS and to help us understand the burden of disease due to STI and BBV among Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples. Methods: Researchers invited participation from ACCHS in urban, regional and remote areas clustered in five clinical hubs across four Australian jurisdictions. Participation agreements were developed for each clinical hub and individual ACCHS. Deidentified electronic medical record (EMR) data relating to STI and BBV testing, treatment and management are collected passively from each ACCHS via the GRHANITE tm data extraction tool. These data are analysed centrally to inform 12 performance measures which are included in regular surveillance reports generated for each ACCHS and clinical hub. Results: The ATLAS network currently includes 29 ACCHS. Regular reports are provided to ACCHS to assess clinical practice and drive continuous quality improvement initiatives internally. Data is also aggregated at the hub, jurisdictional and national level and will be used to inform clinical guidelines and to guide future research questions. The ATLAS infrastructure can be expanded to include other health services and potentially linked to other data sources using GRHANITE. Conclusions: The ATLAS network is an established national surveillance network specific to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples. The data collected through the ATLAS network augments the NNDSS and will contribute to improved STI and BBV clinical care, guidelines and policy program-planning.