Centre for Health Policy, The University of Melbourne School of Population and Global Health, Carlton South, Victoria, Australia
Centre for Health Policy, The University of Melbourne School of Population and Global Health, Carlton South, Victoria, Australia.
BMJ Glob Health. 2022 Jun;7(6). doi: 10.1136/bmjgh-2022-009167.
Australian government planning promotes evidence-based action as the overarching goal to achieving health equality for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander populations. However, an inequitable distribution of power and resources in the conduct of evidence-based practice produces a policy environment counterintuitive to this goal. This context of contemporary evidence-based practice gives legitimacy to 'expert practitioners' located in Australian governments and universities to use Western guidelines and tools, embedded in Western methodology, to make 'evidence' informed policy and programming decisions about Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander populations. This method for decision making assumes a positional superiority that can marginalise the important perspectives, experiences and knowledge of Aboriginal Community Controlled Organisations and their processes for decision making. Here we consider the four steps of an evidence review: (1) developing a review question; (2) acquiring studies; (3) appraising the evidence and (4) assessing the evidence, as components of wider evidence-based practice. We discuss some of the limitations across each step that arise from the broader context within which the evidence review is produced. We propose that an ethical and just approach to evidence-based review can be achieved through a well-resourced Aboriginal community controlled sector, where Aboriginal organisations generate their own evidence and evidence is reviewed using methods and tools that privilege Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander ways of knowing, doing and being.
澳大利亚政府的规划以实现原住民和托雷斯海峡岛民群体健康平等为总体目标,推动基于证据的行动。然而,在进行循证实践时,权力和资源的不平等分配导致政策环境与这一目标背道而驰。在这种当代循证实践的背景下,澳大利亚政府和大学中的“专家实践者”有了合法性,可以利用西方的指导方针和工具,以及嵌入其中的西方方法,就原住民和托雷斯海峡岛民群体做出“基于证据”的政策和规划决策。这种决策方法假设了一种位置上的优越性,可能会使原住民社区控制组织及其决策过程的重要观点、经验和知识边缘化。在这里,我们考虑了证据审查的四个步骤:(1)制定审查问题;(2)获取研究;(3)评估证据;(4)评估证据,作为更广泛的循证实践的组成部分。我们讨论了在证据审查产生的更广泛背景下,每个步骤中出现的一些限制。我们提出,通过资源充足的原住民社区控制部门,可以实现循证审查的伦理和公正方法,原住民组织可以生成自己的证据,并且可以使用优先考虑原住民和托雷斯海峡岛民的知识、行为和存在方式的方法和工具来审查证据。