INdigenous Systems and Policies Improved and Reimagined for Ear and hearing care (INSPIRE): a multi-method study protocol.

INTRODUCTION: Otitis media (middle ear disease) severity and chronicity among Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people, as well as gaps in socioeconomic outcomes related to hearing loss, indicates a breakdown in the current ear and hearing care system. The ear and hearing care system spans multiple sectors due to long-term impacts of otitis media and hearing loss in health, education and employment, necessitating a multi-disciplinary cross-sectorial approach to ear and hearing care. Public policies shape the current ear and hearing care system and here it is argued that a critical public policy analysis across different sectors is needed, with strong Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander leadership and guidance. The current study aims to establish consensus-based ear and hearing care policy solutions for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people in Australia. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This multi-method study will be guided by a Brains Trust with strong Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander leadership. Public policies in hearing health, social services, and education will be scoped to identify policy gaps, using the World Health Organization framework. Qualitative data will be collected through a culturally specific process of yarning circles to identify policy challenges and/or limitations in enabling accessible ear and hearing care programs/services for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people, using dimensions of Morestin's public policy appraisal tool as an interview guide for stakeholders. Themes from the yarning circles will be used to inform an expert Delphi process to establish consensus-based policy solutions for optimising the ear and hearing care system for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This study has approval from the Australian Institute of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Studies Ethics Committee. Study findings will be disseminated to community through Brains Trust members and study participants, as well as through publications in peer-reviewed journals and research forum presentations.

Wearables for early detection of atrial fibrillation and timely referral for Indigenous people ≥55 years: mixed-methods protocol.

INTRODUCTION: Digital health technologies have the potential to provide cost-effective care to remote and underserved populations. To realise this potential, research must involve people not traditionally included. No research focuses on the acceptability and feasibility of older Indigenous people using wearables for early atrial fibrillation (AF) detection. This protocol compares digital augmentation against standard practice to detect AF, evaluate heart health self-efficacy and health literacy changes and identify barriers in collaboration with Aboriginal Community Controlled Health Organisations. It will establish a framework for implementing culturally safe and acceptable wearable programmes for detecting and managing AF in Indigenous adults ≥55 years and older. METHODS: This mixed-methods research will use the Rambaldini model of collective impact, a user-centred, co-design methodology and yarning circles, a recognised Indigenous research methodology to assess the cultural safety, acceptability, feasibility and efficacy of incorporating wearables into standard care for early AF detection. ANALYSIS: Qualitative data will be analysed to create composite descriptions of participants' experiences and perspectives related to comfort, cultural safety, convenience, confidence, family reactions and concerns. Quantitative device data will be extracted and analysed via Statistical Product and Service Solutions (SPSS). CONCLUSION: Prioritising perspectives of older Indigenous adults on using wearables for detecting and monitoring cardiovascular disease will ensure that the findings are effective, relevant and acceptable to those impacted. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Findings will be published in open-source peer-reviewed journals, shared at professional conferences, described in lay terms and made available to the public. The AHMRC HREC Reference Number approved 1135/15.

Putting Indigenous Cultures and Indigenous Knowledges Front and Centre to Clinical Practice: Katherine Hospital Case Example.

The inclusion of Indigenous cultures, known as the cultural determinants of health, in healthcare policy and health professional education accreditation and registration requirements, is increasingly being recognised as imperative for improving the appalling health and well-being of Indigenous Australians. These inclusions are a strengths-based response to tackling the inequities in Indigenous Australians' health relative to the general population. However, conceptualising the cultural determinants of health in healthcare practice has its contextual challenges, and gaps in implementation evidence are apparent. In this paper, we provide a case example, namely the Katherine Hospital, of how healthcare services can implement the cultural determinants of health into clinical practice. However, to be effective, health professionals must concede that Australia's Indigenous peoples' knowledges involving cultural ways of being, knowing and doing must co-exist with western and biomedical knowledges of health practice. We use the Katherine Hospital ABC Radio National Background Briefing interview, which was mentioned by two research participants in a 2020 study, as an example of good practice that we can learn from. Additionally, the six Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Health actions contained in the 2nd Edition of the Australian National Safety and Quality Health Service Standards provide governance and accountability examples of how to enable Indigenous people's cultures and their knowledges in the provision of services. The role of non-Indigenous clinical allies and accomplices is imperative when embedding and enacting Indigenous Australians' cultures in service systems of health. When Indigenous Peoples access mainstream hospitals, deep self-reflection by allies and accomplices is necessary to enable safe, quality care, and treatment that is culturally safe and free from racism. Doing so can increase cultural responsiveness free of racism, thereby reducing the inherent power imbalances embedded within mainstream health services.

The Indigenous Adolescent Oral Health Partnership Study: A Co-Design Study Protocol.

BACKGROUND: in this protocol we outline a method of working alongside Aboriginal communities to learn about and facilitate improvement in the oral health habits in Aboriginal adolescents. By facilitating positive oral health in Aboriginal adolescents, we hope to achieve lifelong improvement in oral health and general wellbeing. METHODS: this paper outlines a co-design methodology through which researchers and Aboriginal communities will work together to create a custom oral healthcare program aimed at Aboriginal adolescents. Researchers, a youth advisory group, Aboriginal community-controlled health services and three regional NSW communities will together devise an oral health strategy focused on five components: application of topical fluoride, increasing water consumption, improving nutrition, daily toothbrushing, and enhancing social and emotional wellbeing. Capacity building is a key outcome of this program. DISCUSSION: as the gap in health status between Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal people remains wide, it is clear that new approaches and attitudes are needed in Aboriginal public health research. This protocol is representative of this shifting approach; giving power to Aboriginal communities who seek to have sovereignty and self-determination over their healthcare. TRIAL REGISTRATION: TRN: ISRCTN15496753 Date of registration: 20 October 2021.

Applying collective impact in Aboriginal health services and research: three case studies tell an important story.

BACKGROUND: Co-design is the latest buzzword in healthcare services and research and is ubiquitous in Australian funding grants and policy documents. There are no standards for what constitutes co-design and it is often confused with less collaborative processes such as consultation. Collective impact is a co-design tool used for complex and entrenched problems. It uses a systematic approach and requires power and resource sharing. We applied collective impact to three research projects with Aboriginal communities. This paper explores how collective impact can enhance participation and outcomes in healthcare services and research. METHODS: We evaluated the collective impact process and outcomes in three translational health research projects with Aboriginal people and communities using a case study approach. We adapted the model using an iterative co-design approach. RESULTS: We adapted the collective impact model in three ways: 1) replaced the precondition of 'problems that are urgent' with 'problems that are complex and entrenched'; 2) added to the 'common agenda' the requirement to establish a planned exit and long-term sustainability strategy from the outset; and 3) added the delivery of a public policy outcome as a result of the collective impact process. CONCLUSIONS: Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander health is an important public policy priority that requires new and different approaches to service delivery and research. This study adapted the collective impact approach and developed the Rambaldini model through three translational health research case studies and found that a modified collective impact approach is an effective tool for engagement and outcomes.

Talking about the 'r' word: a right to a health system that is free of racism.

Australia's local, state, territory and federal governments have agreed that the 10-year life expectancy gap between Indigenous and non-Indigenous Australians will be closed by 2031. However, annual Closing the Gap reports tabled by the various prime ministers in the Australian Parliament (for the past 12 years) have consistently indicated that the life expectancy gap continues to widen. Australia has seen more than three decades of government policies since the landmark 1989 National Aboriginal health strategy. What has been missing from these policy commitments is the genuine enactment of the knowledges that are held by Indigenous Australians relating to their cultural ways of being, knowing and doing. Privileging Indigenous knowledges, cultures and voices must be front and centre in developing, designing and implementing policies and programs. The sharing of power, provision of resources, culturally informed reflective policy making, and program design are critical elements. In this paper, we provide a conceptual model of practice, working at the cultural interface where knowledges are valued and innovations can occur. This model of practice is where knowledges and cultures can co-exist, and it could be the answer to Closing the Gap in life expectancy by 2031. Despite a growing willingness and need to consider these models, there remains a deep-seated resistance to identifying and addressing institutional and systemic racism and racist attitudes, including unconscious biases held by individuals. Further, western non-Indigenous worldviews of ways of being, knowing and doing continue to dominate the decisions and actions of governments - and consequentially dominate public health policies and practices. There is an unacceptable standard approach, for and about Indigenous health instead of with Indigenous peoples, resulting in the neglectful dismissal of Indigenous knowledges and Indigenous cultures of ways of being, knowing and doing.

A case study of enhanced clinical care enabled by Aboriginal health research: the Hearing, EAr health and Language Services (HEALS) project.

OBJECTIVE: To describe and evaluate Hearing EAr health and Language Services (HEALS), a New South Wales (NSW) health initiative implemented in 2013 and 2014 as a model for enhanced clinical services arising from Aboriginal health research. METHODS: A case-study involving a mixed-methods evaluation of the origins and outcomes of HEALS, a collaboration among five NSW Aboriginal Community Controlled Health Services (ACCHS), the Sydney Children's Hospitals Network, NSW Health, the Aboriginal Health and Medical Research Council, and local service providers. Service delivery data was collected fortnightly; semi-structured interviews were conducted with healthcare providers and caregivers of children who participated in HEALS. RESULTS: To circumvent health service barriers, HEALS used relationships established through the Study of Environment on Aboriginal Resilience and Child Health (SEARCH) to form a specialist healthcare network. HEALS employed dedicated staff and provided a Memorandum of Understanding (detailing mutual goals and responsibilities) for each ACCHS. Despite very tight timeframes, HEALS provided services for 653 Aboriginal children, including 5,822 speech-language pathology sessions and 219 Ear, Nose and Throat procedures. Four themes reflecting the perceived impact of HEALS were identified: valued clinical outcomes, raising community awareness, developing relationships/networks and augmented service delivery. CONCLUSIONS: HEALS delivered rapid and effective specialist healthcare services through an existing research collaboration with five ACCHS, cooperation from local health service providers, and effective community engagement. Implications for Public Health: HEALS serves as a framework for targeted, enhanced healthcare that benefits Aboriginal communities by encapsulating the 'no research without service' philosophy.

Developing an Aboriginal Health Plan for NSW: the consultation process.

In partnership with the Aboriginal Health and Medical Research Council of NSW (AH&MRC), the NSW Ministry of Health is developing a 10-year Aboriginal Health Plan for NSW. Recent reports have highlighted the need for significant systemic and structural change, coupled with genuine engagement with Aboriginal people. A whole health-system approach has been adopted and is examining all the interdependent and influencing elements that impede or facilitate effective health outcomes for Aboriginal people. The collaboration will develop a new strategic framework that will provide clear direction concerning how we address Aboriginal health in NSW. We have done this by seeking genuine engagement and partnership with Aboriginal people, organisations and communities. A phased approach has been used to develop the Plan. This paper describes the first phase of a two-phased approach. A discussion paper was released on National Close the Gap Day, 22 March 2012.

Building a strategic approach to improve Aboriginal health research and evaluation in NSW.

A 5-year strategic plan for Aboriginal health research and evaluation has been developed to support the NSW Ministry of Health in its efforts to create the evidence for what works in addressing the health disparity between Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal people. The plan has the following objectives: that all Aboriginal health policies and programs are evidence informed; that programs and strategies are rigorously evaluated and contribute to building the evidence for improving Aboriginal health outcomes; that new research evidence is generated for improving Aboriginal health outcomes; and that robust monitoring and accountability mechanisms in Aboriginal health are in place, with improved data quality. This paper describes the development of the NSW Ministry of Health's Aboriginal Health Research and Evaluation Strategic Plan 2011-15, including a review of the evidence and policy documents, facilitated planning sessions, and consultation with staff within the Population and Public Health Division of the Ministry.