Comparison of Study Quality as Determined by Standard Research and Community Engagement Metrics: A Pilot Study on Breast Cancer Research in Urban, Rural, and Remote Indigenous Communities

Vita Christie, Janaki Amin, John Skinner, Debbie Green, Karen Littlejohn and Kylie Gwynne
Additional contact information
Vita Christie: Faculty of Medicine Health and Human Sciences, Macquarie University, Sydney, NSW 2109, Australia
Janaki Amin: Faculty of Medicine Health and Human Sciences, Macquarie University, Sydney, NSW 2109, Australia
John Skinner: Poche Centre for Indigenous Health, The University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW 2006, Australia
Debbie Green: Armajun Aboriginal Health Service, Armidale, NSW 2350, Australia
Karen Littlejohn: Foundation for Breast Cancer Care, South Brisbane, QLD 4101, Australia
Kylie Gwynne: Faculty of Medicine Health and Human Sciences, Macquarie University, Sydney, NSW 2109, Australia

IJERPH, 2022, vol. 19, issue 9, 1-6

Abstract: The purpose of this review is to compare research evaluation tools to determine whether the tools typically used for assessing the quality of research adequately address issues of Indigenous health and culture, particularly when the studies are intended to benefit Indigenous peoples in urban, regional, rural, and remote settings. Our previously published systematic review evaluated studies about breast cancer using a modified Indigenous community engagement tool (CET). In this study, we evaluated the same studies using two commonly used tools: the Critical Appraisal Skills Programme (CASP) for qualitative research; and the Effective Public Health Practice Project (EPHPP) for quantitative research. The results were then compared to ascertain whether there was alignment between performances in terms of engagement and the CASP/EPHPP metrics. Of the 15 papers, 3 papers scored weakly on both metrics, and are therefore the least likely to offer reliable findings, while 2 papers scored strongly on both metrics, and are therefore the most likely to offer reliable findings. Beyond this summation, it was clear that the results did not align and, therefore, could not be used interchangeably when applied to research findings intended to benefit Indigenous peoples. There does not appear to be a pattern in the relationship between the reliability of the studies and the study settings. In order to address disparities in health outcomes, we must assess research through a typical research quality and cultural engagement and settings lens, ensuring that there is rigour in all aspects of the studies.

Keywords: research methodologies; indigenous health; health knowledge; attitudes; practice; community participation (search for similar items in EconPapers)
JEL-codes: I I1 I3 Q Q5 (search for similar items in EconPapers)
Date: 2022
References: View references in EconPapers View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations:

Downloads: (external link)
https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/19/9/5008/pdf (application/pdf)
https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/19/9/5008/ (text/html)

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:19:y:2022:i:9:p:5008-:d:798033

Access Statistics for this article

IJERPH is currently edited by Ms. Jenna Liu

More articles in IJERPH from MDPI
Bibliographic data for series maintained by MDPI Indexing Manager ().