Geographical analysis of evaluated chronic disease programs for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people in the Australian primary health care setting: a systematic scoping review

Abstract

Background Targeted chronic disease programs are vital to improving health outcomes for Indigenous people globally. In Australia it is not known where evaluated chronic disease programs for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people have been implemented. This scoping review geographically examines where evaluated chronic disease programs for Aboriginal people have been implemented in the Australian primary health care setting. Secondary objectives include scoping programs for evidence of partnerships with Aboriginal organisations, and use of ethical protocols. By doing so, geographical gaps in the literature and variations in ethical approaches to conducting program evaluations are highlighted. Methods The objectives, inclusion criteria and methods for this scoping review were specified in advance and documented in a published protocol. This scoping review was undertaken in accordance with the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) scoping review methodology. The search included 11 academic databases, clinical trial registries, and the grey literature. Results The search resulted in 6894 citations, with 241 retrieved from the grey literature and targeted organisation websites. Title, abstract, and full-text screening was conducted by two independent reviewers, with 314 citations undergoing full review. Of these, 74 citations evaluating 50 programs met the inclusion criteria. Of the programs included in the geographical analysis ( n = 40), 32.1% were implemented in Major Cities and 29.6% in Very Remote areas of Australia. A smaller proportion of programs were delivered in Inner Regional (12.3%), Outer Regional (18.5%) and Remote areas (7.4%) of Australia. Overall, 90% ( n = 45) of the included programs collaborated with an Aboriginal organisation in the implementation and/or evaluation of the program. Variation in the use of ethical guidelines and protocols in the evaluation process was evident. Conclusions A greater focus on the evaluation of chronic disease programs for Aboriginal people residing in Inner and Outer Regional areas, and Remote areas of Australia is required. Across all geographical areas further efforts should be made to conduct evaluations in partnership with Aboriginal communities residing in the geographical region of program implementation. The need for more scientifically and ethically rigorous approaches to Aboriginal health program evaluations is evident. Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (10.1186/s12889-019-7463-0) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

The Gene-Drug Duality: Exploring the Pharmacogenomics of Indigenous Populations

“…Australian Indigenous populations face a far greater burden of chronic diseases, substantially decreased life expectancy, and poorer overall general health relative to the non-Indigenous population, consistent with findings for Indigenous populations in other nations ( Table 1 ; Thynne and Gabb, 2016 ; Beks et al, 2019 ). Most Indigenous Australians suffer from ≥1 chronic diseases ( Tucci, 2011 ; Thynne and Gabb, 2016 ; Beks et al, 2019 ).…”

“…Australian Indigenous populations face a far greater burden of chronic diseases, substantially decreased life expectancy, and poorer overall general health relative to the non-Indigenous population, consistent with findings for Indigenous populations in other nations ( Table 1 ; Thynne and Gabb, 2016 ; Beks et al, 2019 ). Most Indigenous Australians suffer from ≥1 chronic diseases ( Tucci, 2011 ; Thynne and Gabb, 2016 ; Beks et al, 2019 ). Chronic diseases with a strong environmental and behavioral etiology, such as cardiovascular disease, hypertension, diabetes, obesity, chronic kidney disease, and depression, contribute to 80% of the mortality gap between Indigenous and non-Indigenous Australians under the age of 75 years ( Tucci, 2011 ; Anderson et al, 2016 ).…”

Mobile primary health care clinics for Indigenous populations in Australia, Canada, New Zealand and the United States: a systematic scoping review

“…Although there was some evidence of Indigenous organisational governance or involvement in the implementation of most mobile clinics, it was difficult to ascertain the degree of Indigenous community ownership. This is a key issue which has been discussed in another review examining chronic disease programs implemented for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander populations [ 112 ], and in the international literature examining health services and programs for Indigenous populations [ 27 , 113 , 114 ]. Indigenous community ownership of mobile clinics is imperative to ensuring culture, self-determination, and community participation are embedded in the delivery of primary health care services [ 109 ].…”

Academics in the bush: Are rural, remote and very remote Australians being sold short?

“…1 Given the durability of the UDRH and RCS programs and the recent innovation with the creation of the RHMT program, it is timely to highlight a disturbing narrative which appears to be emerging in some locales. There is no doubt that progress has been made in the two decades since the programs have been introduced.…”

“…A recent systematic review of the implementation and evaluation of chronic disease programs for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people, for example, reported a mean difference of 660 km between where a program was implemented, and where it was evaluated, for programs where both implementation and evaluation data were available. 1 Given the durability of the UDRH and RCS programs and the recent innovation with the creation of the RHMT program, it is timely to highlight a disturbing narrative which appears to be emerging in some locales. The narrative concerns the role of the academic in the RHMT program.…”