Indigenous Cultural Identity of Research Authors Standard: research and reconciliation with Indigenous Peoples in rural health journals.

The Indigenous Cultural Identity of Research Authors Standard (ICIRAS) is based on a gap in research publishing practice where Indigenous peoples' identity is not systematically and rigorously recognised in rural health research publications. There are widespread reforms, in different research areas, to counter the reputation of scientific research as a vehicle of racism and discrimination. Reflecting on these broader movements, the editorial teams of three rural health journals - Rural and Remote Health, the Australian Journal of Rural Health, and the Canadian Journal of Rural Medicine - adopted a policy of 'Nothing about Indigenous Peoples, without Indigenous Peoples'. This meant changing practices so that Indigenous Peoples' identity could be embedded in authorship credentials - such as in the byline. An environmental scan of literature about the inclusion of Indigenous Peoples in research revealed many ways in which editorial boards of journals could improve their process to signal to readers that Indigenous voices are included in rural health research publication governance. Improving the health and wellbeing of Indigenous peoples worldwide requires high-quality research evidence. This quality benchmark needs to explicitly signal the inclusion of Indigenous authors. The ICIRAS is a call to action for research journals and institutions to rigorously improve research governance and leadership to amplify the cultural identity of Indigenous peoples in rural health research.

Sustained participation in annual continuous quality improvement activities improves quality of care for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children.

AIM: To determine whether participation in the continuous quality improvement (CQI) Audit and Best Practice for Chronic Disease programme improved care and outcomes for Indigenous children. METHODS: Data were collected from 59 Australian primary health-care centres providing services to Indigenous people and participating in the programme (February 2008 and December 2013). Indigenous children aged less than 2 years and centres that completed three or more consecutive annual audits within the 6-year study period were included. Crude and adjusted logistic generalised estimating equation models were used to examine the effect of year of audit on the delivery of care. Odds ratio (OR) and 95% confidence interval (CI) were calculated. Outcomes were related to age-relevant health issues, including prevention and early intervention. These included administrative, health check, anticipatory guidance and specific health issues. RESULTS: During the audit period, there were 2360 files from 59 centres. Those that had a recall recorded, improved from 84 to 95% (OR 2.44, 95% CI 1.44-4.11). Hearing assessments improved from 52 to 89% (OR 1.37, 95% CI 1.22-1.54). Improvement in anticipatory guidance, treatment and follow-up of medical conditions was almost universal. CONCLUSION: We documented significant improvements in quality of care of Indigenous children. Outcomes and their corresponding treatment and follow-ups improved over time. This appears to be related to services participating in annual CQI activities. However, these services may be more committed to CQI than others and therefore possibly better performing.