M Le Grande1, C F Ski2, D R Thompson2, P Scuffham3, S Kularatna3, A C Jackson4, A Brown5. 1. Australian Centre for Heart Health, Melbourne, Australia; Faculty of Health, Deakin University, Burwood, Australia. Electronic address: michael.legrande@australianhearthealth.org.au. 2. Australian Centre for Heart Health, Melbourne, Australia; Department of Psychiatry, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia. 3. Menzies Health Institute, Griffith University, Gold Coast, Australia; Centre for Applied Health Economics, Griffith University, Nathan, Australia. 4. Australian Centre for Heart Health, Melbourne, Australia; Faculty of Health, Deakin University, Burwood, Australia; Centre on Behavioural Health, University of Hong Kong, Pokfulam, Hong Kong. 5. Wardliparingga Aboriginal Research Unit, South Australian Health and Medical Research Institute, Adelaide, Australia; Sansom Institute, University of South Australia, Adelaide, Australia.
Abstract
RATIONALE: There is growing recognition that in addition to universally recognised domains and indicators of wellbeing (such as population health and life expectancy), additional frameworks are required to fully explain and measure Indigenous wellbeing. In particular, Indigenous Australian wellbeing is largely determined by colonisation, historical trauma, grief, loss, and ongoing social marginalisation. Dominant mainstream indicators of wellbeing based on the biomedical model may therefore be inadequate and not entirely relevant in the Indigenous context. It is possible that "standard" wellbeing instruments fail to adequately assess indicators of health and wellbeing within societies that have a more holistic view of health. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this critical review was to identify, document, and evaluate the use of social and emotional wellbeing measures within the Australian Indigenous community. METHOD: The instruments were systematically described regarding their intrinsic properties (e.g., generic v. disease-specific, domains assessed, extent of cross-cultural adaptation and psychometric characteristics) and their purpose of utilisation in studies (e.g., study setting, intervention, clinical purpose or survey). We included 33 studies, in which 22 distinct instruments were used. RESULTS: Three major categories of social and emotional wellbeing instruments were identified: unmodified standard instruments (10), cross-culturally adapted standard instruments (6), and Indigenous developed measures (6). Recommendations are made for researchers and practitioners who assess social and emotional wellbeing in Indigenous Australians, which may also be applicable to other minority groups where a more holistic framework of wellbeing is applied. CONCLUSION: It is advised that standard instruments only be used if they have been subject to a formal cross-cultural adaptation process, and Indigenous developed measures continue to be developed, refined, and validated within a diverse range of research and clinical settings.
RATIONALE: There is growing recognition that in addition to universally recognised domains and indicators of wellbeing (such as population health and life expectancy), additional frameworks are required to fully explain and measure Indigenous wellbeing. In particular, Indigenous Australian wellbeing is largely determined by colonisation, historical trauma, grief, loss, and ongoing social marginalisation. Dominant mainstream indicators of wellbeing based on the biomedical model may therefore be inadequate and not entirely relevant in the Indigenous context. It is possible that "standard" wellbeing instruments fail to adequately assess indicators of health and wellbeing within societies that have a more holistic view of health. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this critical review was to identify, document, and evaluate the use of social and emotional wellbeing measures within the Australian Indigenous community. METHOD: The instruments were systematically described regarding their intrinsic properties (e.g., generic v. disease-specific, domains assessed, extent of cross-cultural adaptation and psychometric characteristics) and their purpose of utilisation in studies (e.g., study setting, intervention, clinical purpose or survey). We included 33 studies, in which 22 distinct instruments were used. RESULTS: Three major categories of social and emotional wellbeing instruments were identified: unmodified standard instruments (10), cross-culturally adapted standard instruments (6), and Indigenous developed measures (6). Recommendations are made for researchers and practitioners who assess social and emotional wellbeing in Indigenous Australians, which may also be applicable to other minority groups where a more holistic framework of wellbeing is applied. CONCLUSION: It is advised that standard instruments only be used if they have been subject to a formal cross-cultural adaptation process, and Indigenous developed measures continue to be developed, refined, and validated within a diverse range of research and clinical settings.
Keywords:
Australia; Conceptualisation of health; Critical review; Cross-cultural assessment; Health inequalities; Indigenous health; Quality of life; Social and emotional wellbeing
Authors: Catherine Chamberlain; Graham Gee; Stephen Harfield; Sandra Campbell; Sue Brennan; Yvonne Clark; Fiona Mensah; Kerry Arabena; Helen Herrman; Stephanie Brown Journal: PLoS One Date: 2019-03-13 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Fergus Gardiner; Jocelyn Middleton; Shamela Perera; Mikayla Gunner; Leonid Churilov; Mathew Coleman; Lee Poole Journal: Lancet Reg Health West Pac Date: 2022-02-02
Authors: Bernard Leckning; Tanja Hirvonen; Gregory Armstrong; Timothy A Carey; Mark Westby; Alix Ringbauer; Gary Robinson Journal: Aust N Z J Psychiatry Date: 2020-05-26 Impact factor: 5.744
Authors: Erika Langham; Janya McCalman; Michelle Redman-MacLaren; Ernest Hunter; Mark Wenitong; Amelia Britton; Katrina Rutherford; Vicki Saunders; Michael Ungar; Roxanne Bainbridge Journal: Front Public Health Date: 2018-10-23
Authors: Sanjeewa Kularatna; Ratilal Lalloo; Jeroen Kroon; Santosh K K Tadakamadla; Paul A Scuffham; Newell W Johnson Journal: Health Qual Life Outcomes Date: 2020-02-24 Impact factor: 3.186