Indigenous and Non-Indigenous Truly Working Together (Co-creating) to Facilitate Adaptation and Health/Well-being:Barriers and Enablers

Over the last three years, a $12.4 million three-year Commonwealth-funded consortium project designed and trailed energy and water efficiency initiatives in six remote Indigenous East Arnhem Land communities. This project employed more than 90 local Yolŋu across six communities to educate their fellow community members using their Indigenous local languages. After these Yolŋu Energy Efficiency Workers (YEEWs) were trained by Indigenous and non-Indigenous educators in their language, they visited houses in their communities to educate them. The YEEWs led the education in their communities; the non-Indigenous team members supported. The YEEWs worked part-time and in teams. The project also included a research and evaluation component which was designed by experienced Yolŋu researchers and non-Indigenous researchers. They identified and trained 16 local Yolŋu co-researchers across the six participating communities to interview their fellow community members in their local Indigenous languages at the start of the project and towards the end of the project. Together the true, full and deep stories collected provide rare insights into how Yolŋu experienced and perceived fire/power and water in the old days, during missionary times, and during government days. The stories identify barriers to and enablers of Indigenous and non-Indigenous people working together designing and conducting projects, and researching and evaluating projects. The stories capture how Yolŋu households and YEEWs experienced and interpreted the project (what worked, what was challenging, what did not work), and what they believe is needed for future projects to work better. In this presentation we share the essence of these stories to draw out the barriers and enablers of Indigenous and non-Indigenous people working truly together to faciliate adaptation and health/wellbeing in remote Indigenous communities. We will explore how psychological and contextual (historical, natural, build, cultural, spiritual, economic, political) factors on both sides interacted to hinder collaboration. We will offer psychological and contextual aspects that emerged? that would enable and facilitate Indigenous and non-Indigenous people working genuinely together

Integrating an ecological approach into an Aboriginal community-based chronic disease prevention program: a longitudinal process evaluation

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Public health promotes an ecological approach to chronic disease prevention, however, little research has been conducted to assess the integration of an ecological approach in community-based prevention programs. This study sought to contribute to the evidence base by assessing the extent to which an ecological approach was integrated into an Aboriginal community-based cardiovascular disease (CVD) and type 2 diabetes prevention program, across three-intervention years.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>Activity implementation forms were completed by interview with implementers and participant observation across three intervention years. A standardised ecological coding procedure was applied to assess participant recruitment settings, intervention targets, intervention strategy types, extent of ecologicalness and organisational partnering. Inter-rater reliability for two coders was assessed at Kappa = 0.76 (p < .0.001), 95% CI (0.58, 0.94).</p> <p>Results</p> <p>215 activities were implemented across three intervention years by the health program (HP) with some activities implemented in multiple years. Participants were recruited most frequently through organisational settings in years 1 and 2, and organisational and community settings in year 3. The most commonly utilised intervention targets were the individual (IND) as a direct target, and interpersonal (INT) and organisational (ORG) environments as indirect targets; policy (POL), and community (COM) were targeted least. Direct (HP→ IND) and indirect intervention strategies (i.e., HP→ INT→ IND, HP→ POL → IND) were used most often; networking strategies, which link at least two targets (i.e., HP→[ORG-ORG]→IND), were used the least. The program did not become more ecological over time.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>The quantity of activities with IND, INT and ORG targets and the proportion of participants recruited through informal cultural networking demonstrate community commitment to prevention. Integration of an ecological approach would have been facilitated by greater inter-organisational collaboration and centralised planning. The upfront time required for community stakeholders to develop their capacity to mobilise around chronic disease is at odds with short-term funding cycles that emphasise organisational accountability.</p