OBJECTIVE: To describe the main characteristics of systematic reviews addressing questions of chronic disease and related risk factors for Indigenous Australians. METHODS: We searched databases for systematic reviews meeting inclusion criteria. Two reviewers assessed quality and extracted characteristics using pre-defined tools. RESULTS: We identified 14 systematic reviews. Seven synthesised evidence about health intervention effectiveness; four addressed chronic disease or risk factor prevalence; and six conducted critical appraisal as per current best practice. Only three reported steps to align the review with standards for ethical research with Indigenous Australians and/or capture Indigenous-specific knowledge. Most called for more high-quality research. CONCLUSION: Systematic review is an under-utilised method for gathering evidence to inform chronic disease prevention and management for Indigenous Australians. Relevance of future systematic reviews could be improved by: 1) aligning questions with community priorities as well as decision maker needs; 2) involvement of, and leadership by, Indigenous researchers with relevant cultural and contextual knowledge; iii) use of critical appraisal tools that include traditional risk of bias assessment criteria and criteria that reflect Indigenous standards of appropriate research. IMPLICATIONS: Systematic review method guidance, tools and reporting standards are required to ensure alignment with ethical obligations and promote rigor and relevance.
OBJECTIVE: To describe the main characteristics of systematic reviews addressing questions of chronic disease and related risk factors for Indigenous Australians. METHODS: We searched databases for systematic reviews meeting inclusion criteria. Two reviewers assessed quality and extracted characteristics using pre-defined tools. RESULTS: We identified 14 systematic reviews. Seven synthesised evidence about health intervention effectiveness; four addressed chronic disease or risk factor prevalence; and six conducted critical appraisal as per current best practice. Only three reported steps to align the review with standards for ethical research with Indigenous Australians and/or capture Indigenous-specific knowledge. Most called for more high-quality research. CONCLUSION: Systematic review is an under-utilised method for gathering evidence to inform chronic disease prevention and management for Indigenous Australians. Relevance of future systematic reviews could be improved by: 1) aligning questions with community priorities as well as decision maker needs; 2) involvement of, and leadership by, Indigenous researchers with relevant cultural and contextual knowledge; iii) use of critical appraisal tools that include traditional risk of bias assessment criteria and criteria that reflect Indigenous standards of appropriate research. IMPLICATIONS: Systematic review method guidance, tools and reporting standards are required to ensure alignment with ethical obligations and promote rigor and relevance.
Authors: Vivian Welch; Omar Dewidar; Elizabeth Tanjong Ghogomu; Salman Abdisalam; Abdulah Al Ameer; Victoria I Barbeau; Kevin Brand; Kisanet Kebedom; Maria Benkhalti; Elizabeth Kristjansson; Mohamad Tarek Madani; Alba M Antequera Martín; Christine M Mathew; Jessie McGowan; William McLeod; Hanbyoul Agatha Park; Jennifer Petkovic; Alison Riddle; Peter Tugwell; Mark Petticrew; Jessica Trawin; George A Wells Journal: Cochrane Database Syst Rev Date: 2022-01-18
Authors: Rachel Reilly; Katharine Evans; Judith Gomersall; Gillian Gorham; Micah D J Peters; Steven Warren; Rebekah O'Shea; Alan Cass; Alex Brown Journal: BMC Health Serv Res Date: 2016-04-06 Impact factor: 2.655