Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Human Research Ethics Committees (HRECs) are essential in promoting our health and wellbeing

The history of unethical and inhumane research conducted on Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people since colonisation highlights the critical need for specific Human Research Ethics for research involving Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples in Australia. The development of Aboriginal Human Research Ethics Committees (AHRECs) has played a vital role in ensuring research is safe and delivered for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people in a way that protects and promotes their health and wellbeing. However, there remains a lack of appropriate and critical ethical governance for such research in areas without specific Aboriginal HRECs in each jurisdiction. This perspective argues that greater investment in state-based AHRECs and consideration of a national AHREC are essential to ensure the ongoing health and wellbeing of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people in the research process -the ultimate aim of any research that involves them

Deterritorialising media: resilience and activism

ANZCA2017 opened with an Indigenous media plenary session, marking the anniversary of the 1967 referendum which voted to amend discriminatory references to Indigenous people in the Australian Constitution, and the 10th anniversary of National Indigenous Television (NITV). Deterritorialising Media: resilience and Activism explored key changes to Indigenous media practice and publishing over the last decade. Chair Professor Bronwyn Carlson, Head of Indigenous Studies at Macquarie University was joined by media practitioners from Australia and Aotearoa/New Zealand and this article is an edited transcript of their discussion.</p

Goreen Narrkwarren Ngrn-tuora : healthy family air : a literature review

This paper will focus on the literature review for Goreen Narrkwarren Ngrn-toura- Healthy Family Air, formerly known as Reducing smoking amongst pregnant Aboriginal women in Victoria: An Holistic Approach. Before we outline the findings from the literature review, we will provide some background information on the project, including why it is important and what and who are involved

Engaging young people and their caregivers in support services following harmful sexual behaviors: Qualitative analysis

Background: Harmful sexual behavior (HSB) displayed by children and young people under the age of 18 has been described as developmentally inappropriate, may be harmful towards self or others, or be abusive towards another child, young person, or adult. Early intervention and treatment completion are crucial to cease HSB, reduce impacts and address underlying issues for the child who has displayed HSB. Considerable shame attaches to seeking help for this stigmatized behavior which may result in dropout from support services. Understanding young people and caregivers\u27 experiences of what facilitates or hinders their engagement with support services is therefore critical to preventing re-occurrence of HSB and keeping children safe. Objective: This article draws on the first-hand experience of young people and caregivers to address the question: What have they found helpful and unhelpful when engaging with services for harmful sexual behavior? Participants and setting: Participants were recruited from public health and youth justice services in the state of New South Wales, Australia. The 31 participants included 11 young people (aged 14 to 17) and 20 caregivers (parents, foster or kinship carers). Methods: Qualitative data were collected through individual semi-structured interviews, following which thematic analysis was conducted. Results: Data analysis identified three helpful responses: (1) non-judgmental recognition of crisis; (2) child-centred and family-focused orientation; and (3) multi-dimensional interventions. Unhelpful responses included: (1) closed doors (an inability to access a service) (2) stigmatization of HSB; and (3) reduced caregivers\u27 autonomy. Conclusions: Greater involvement of caregivers, non-stigmatizing language and coordinated responses between generalist and specialist services are needed to facilitate service engagement

The dichotomy of commissioning Indigenous health and wellbeing program evaluations:What the Funder wants vs what the Community needs

There are multiple systemic structural barriers that result in health and wellbeing inequities experienced by Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples (hereafter referred to as Indigenous). The recent Overcoming Indigenous Disadvantage 2020 report highlights some of these barriers, emphasising the importance of addressing the social determinants and cultural determinants of health by delivering evidence-based and culturally responsive health programs and initiatives.1 While is it estimated that $5.9 billion (AUS) is spent annually on Indigenous health programs and services in Australia, there is scant evidence to illustrate what works (or does not work), for who and why.2, 3 A mapping exercise of Indigenous-specific programs in Australia reported that of 1082 programs delivered, over 90% were not evaluated to assess whether programs achieved their goals and objectives.3 Also, it is reported that only a few evaluations used culturally appropriate methods for assessing program effectiveness.3 Recently, there have been a growing number of robust evaluations that are culturally responsive, from which we can learn. These have important implications that can guide the commissioning of future evaluations

A scoping review of commissioning practices used in the evaluation of Indigenous health and wellbeing programs: Protocol article

Despite the billions of dollars invested in improving Indigenous health and wellbeing outcomes in Australia, there is little evidence of program effectiveness to inform policy and practice. The deficiency of evaluations is problematic. Critical to this process is the effective engagement of commissioners with Indigenous peoples, which is not well documented. Currently, there is scant evidence on modes of commissioning practices used. This scoping review will aim to identify the spectrum of commissioning practices used when evaluating Indigenous health and wellbeing programs in Australia, codifying them into a model set. Documents (between 2008 and 2020) will be retrieved from Scopus, Proquest, Informit, Google Scholar and via a web-based search that refers to the commissioning of Indigenous health and wellbeing program evaluations in Australia, New Zealand, Canada or the United States. Importantly, the research team is Indigenous-led and the project’s governance, quality and translation framework will be informed by a project advisory group, including Indigenous associates. This will be the first scoping review globally to identify practices used to commission Indigenous health and wellbeing program evaluations. Results will be utilised to strengthen the commissioning practices of Indigenous health and wellbeing programs in Australia and overseas