Pneumococcus in Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples: the role of Aboriginal health workers and implications for nursing practice

Community Health Worker Programs to Improve Healthcare Access and Equity: Are They Only Relevant to Low- and Middle-Income Countries?

Background: Community Health Workers (CHWs) are proven to be highly effective in low- and middle-income countries with many examples of successful large-scale programs. There is growing interest in deploying CHW programs in high-income countries to address inequity in healthcare access and outcomes amongst population groups facing disadvantage. This study is the first that examines the scope and potential value of CHW programs in Australia and the challenges involved in integrating CHWs into the health system. The potential for CHWs to improve health equity is explored.

Methods: Academic and grey literature was searched to examine existing CHW roles in the Australian primary healthcare system. Semi-structured telephone interviews were conducted with a purposive sample of 11 people including policymakers, program managers and practitioners, to develop an understanding of policy and practice.

Results: Literature on CHWs in Australia is sparse, yet combined with interview data indicates CHWs conduct a broad range of roles, including education, advocacy and basic clinical services, and work with a variety of communities experiencing disadvantage. Many, and to some extent inconsistent, terms are used for CHWs, reflecting the various strategies employed by CHWs, the characteristics of the communities they serve, and the health issues they address. The role of aboriginal health workers (AHWs) is comparatively well recognised, understood and documented in Australia with evidence on their contribution to overcoming cultural barriers and improving access to health services. Ethnic health workers assist with language barriers and increase the cultural appropriateness of services. CHWs are widely seen to be well accepted and valuable, facilitating access to health services as a trusted ‘bridge’ to communities. They work best where ‘health’ is conceived to include action on social determinants and service models are less hierarchical. Short term funding models and the lack of professional qualifications and recognition are challenges CHWs encounter.

Conclusion: CHWs serve a range of functions in various contexts in Australian primary healthcare (PHC) with a common, valued purpose of facilitating access to services and information for marginalised communities. CHWs offer a promising opportunity to enhance equity of access to PHC for communities facing disadvantage, especially in the face of rising chronic disease.

Does Indigenous health research have impact? A systematic review of reviews

Background

Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Australians (hereafter respectfully Indigenous Australians) claim that they have been over-researched without corresponding research benefit. This claim raises two questions. The first, which has been covered to some extent in the literature, is about what type(s) of research are likely to achieve benefits for Indigenous people. The second is how researchers report the impact of their research for Indigenous people. This systematic review of Indigenous health reviews addresses the second enquiry.

Methods

Fourteen electronic databases were systematically searched for Indigenous health reviews which met eligibility criteria. Two reviewers assessed their characteristics and methodological rigour using an a priori protocol. Three research hypotheses were stated and tested: (1) reviews address Indigenous health priority needs; (2) reviews adopt best practice guidelines on research conduct and reporting in respect to methodological transparency and rigour, as well as acceptability and appropriateness of research implementation to Indigenous people; and (3) reviews explicitly report the incremental impacts of the included studies and translation of research. We argue that if review authors explicitly address each of these three hypotheses, then the impact of research for Indigenous peoples’ health would be explicated.

Results

Seventy-six reviews were included; comprising 55 journal articles and 21 Australian Government commissioned evidence review reports. While reviews are gaining prominence and recognition in Indigenous health research and increasing in number, breadth and complexity, there is little reporting of the impact of health research for Indigenous people. This finding raises questions about the relevance of these reviews for Indigenous people, their impact on policy and practice and how reviews have been commissioned, reported and evaluated.

Conclusions

The findings of our study serve two main purposes. First, we have identified knowledge and methodological gaps in documenting Indigenous health research impact that can be addressed by researchers and policy makers. Second, the findings provide the justification for developing a framework allowing researchers and funding bodies to structure future Indigenous health research to improve the reporting and assessment of impact over time.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12939-017-0548-4) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.