Faculty of Medicine Health and Human Sciences, Macquarie University, Sydney, NSW 2109, Australia.
Poche Centre for Indigenous Health, The University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW 2006, Australia.
Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2022 Apr 20;19(9):5008. doi: 10.3390/ijerph19095008.
The purpose of this review is to compare research evaluation tools to determine whether the tools typically used for assessing the quality of research adequately address issues of Indigenous health and culture, particularly when the studies are intended to benefit Indigenous peoples in urban, regional, rural, and remote settings. Our previously published systematic review evaluated studies about breast cancer using a modified Indigenous community engagement tool (CET). In this study, we evaluated the same studies using two commonly used tools: the Critical Appraisal Skills Programme (CASP) for qualitative research; and the Effective Public Health Practice Project (EPHPP) for quantitative research. The results were then compared to ascertain whether there was alignment between performances in terms of engagement and the CASP/EPHPP metrics. Of the 15 papers, 3 papers scored weakly on both metrics, and are therefore the least likely to offer reliable findings, while 2 papers scored strongly on both metrics, and are therefore the most likely to offer reliable findings. Beyond this summation, it was clear that the results did not align and, therefore, could not be used interchangeably when applied to research findings intended to benefit Indigenous peoples. There does not appear to be a pattern in the relationship between the reliability of the studies and the study settings. In order to address disparities in health outcomes, we must assess research through a typical research quality and cultural engagement and settings lens, ensuring that there is rigour in all aspects of the studies.
本综述旨在比较研究评估工具，以确定用于评估研究质量的工具是否通常能充分解决原住民健康和文化问题，特别是当这些研究旨在使城市、地区、农村和偏远地区的原住民受益时。我们之前发表的系统评价使用改良的原住民社区参与工具（CET）评估了关于乳腺癌的研究。在这项研究中，我们使用两种常用工具评估了相同的研究：定性研究的批判性评估技能计划（CASP）；以及定量研究的有效公共卫生实践项目（EPHPP）。然后将结果进行比较，以确定在参与度和 CASP/EPHPP 指标方面是否存在一致性。在 15 篇论文中，有 3 篇论文在这两个指标上的得分都较低，因此最不可能提供可靠的发现，而有 2 篇论文在这两个指标上的得分都较高，因此最有可能提供可靠的发现。除了这种总结之外，很明显结果并不一致，因此不能在应用于旨在使原住民受益的研究结果时互换使用。研究结果的可靠性与研究环境之间似乎没有固定的关系。为了解决健康结果方面的差距，我们必须通过典型的研究质量和文化参与以及环境视角来评估研究，确保研究的各个方面都具有严谨性。
