This paper highlights the importance of people as a central factor in improving health for M aori (Indigenous people of New Zealand). How wh anau (family) relationships, connections, values and inspiration are integral to achieving Indigenous health goals is explained. Descriptions of how community researchers, healthcare staff, consumers and academics worked together to design interventions for two health services (in the Waikato and Bay of Plenty regions) is included. Through highlighting the experiences of health consumers, the potential for future interventions to reduce the advancement of pre-diabetes among wh anau is described. Evidence from the study interviews reinforces the importance of wh anau and whakapapa (heritage) as enabling factors for Indigenous people to improve health. Specifically, the positive effect of wh anau enhancing activities that support peoples' aspirations of tino rangatiratanga (self-determination) in their lives when engaging with health care has been observed. This study highlights the many positives that have emerged, and offers an opportunity for taking primary health to the next level by placing wh anau alongside Indigenous primary care providers at the centre of change strategies.

Critically reflecting on researcher–community partnerships is a key component in implementing chronic condition interventions in Indigenous communities. This paper draws on the results and learnings from a process evaluation that measures how well two research–community partnerships have followed the He Pikinga Waiora (HPW) Implementation Framework while co-designing chronic condition interventions in primary care. The HPW framework is centred on Indigenous self-determination and knowledge surrounded by community engagement, cultural centredness, systems thinking and integrated knowledge translation. The evaluation included in-depth interviews and online surveys with 10 team members. The findings demonstrate that the HPW framework was followed well, with strengths particularly in community engagement and relationship building. Areas for improvement included systems thinking and integrated knowledge translation to support sustainability of the interventions. The need for partnerships to use process evaluation results to support critical reflection is asserted, which helps build strong trust and synergy, power sharing and effective and sustainable implementation practices. It is concluded that the HPW framework is well suited to evaluating implementation of health interventions in primary care as it assists in the facilitation of better collaboration between researchers and Indigenous communities, and encourages the implementation team to reflect on power and privilege.

Discussion and Conclusions: The He Pikinga Waiora framework is well suited to evaluating the implementation of health interventions. The tool also helps facilitate better collaboration between researchers and communities, and to reflect on relationships of power and privilege. Lessons Learned: Reflection is important to ensure that a collaboratively developed intervention remains true to is principles. Researchers and community members do not always have the same perceptions about the process and reflecting on these differences helps to ensure that the partnership meets its long-term goals. Limitations: Small sample size results in insufficient power to apply across the general population, and limited the ability to make statistical comparisons between the researchers and the communities. Suggestions for Future Direction: Undertake a second evaluation after the implementation of the interventions and disseminate the process evaluation tool to end-users who intend to develop new co-designed interventions.