• 主题
高级搜索  >
历史搜索 清空历史
首页> 外文期刊>Public Health Research & Practice >The quality of Australian Indigenous primary health care research focusing on social and emotional wellbeing: a systematic review - PHRP
【24h】

The quality of Australian Indigenous primary health care research focusing on social and emotional wellbeing: a systematic review - PHRP

机译：注重社会和情感福祉的澳大利亚土著初级卫生保健研究的质量：系统评价-PHRP

获取原文
           
页面导航
  • 摘要
  • 著录项
  • 相似文献
  • 相关主题

摘要

Objectives and importance of the study: Primary health care research focused on Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander (Indigenous) people is needed to ensure that key frontline services provide evidence based and culturally appropriate care. We systematically reviewed the published primary health care literature to identify research designs, processes and outcomes, and assess the scientific quality of research focused on social and emotional wellbeing. This will inform future research to improve evidence based, culturally appropriate primary health care. Study type: Systematic review in accordance with PRISMA and MOOSE guidelines. Methods: Four databases and one Indigenous-specific project website were searched for qualitative, quantitative and mixed-method published research. Studies that were conducted in primary health care services and focused on the social and emotional wellbeing of Indigenous people were included. Scientific quality was assessed using risk-of-bias assessment tools that were modified to meet our aims. We assessed community acceptance by identifying the involvement of community governance structures and representation during research development, conduct and reporting. Data were extracted using standard forms developed for this review. Results: We included 32?articles, which reported on 25?studies. Qualitative and mixed methods were used in 18?studies. Twelve articles were judged as high or unclear risk of bias, four as moderate and five as low risk of bias. Another four studies were not able to be assessed as they did not align with the risk-of-bias tools. Of the five articles judged as low risk of bias, two also had high community acceptance and both of these were qualitative. One used a phenomenological approach and the other combined participatory action research with a social–ecological perspective and incorporated ‘two-way learning’ principles. Of the 16?studies where a primary outcome was identified, eight aimed to identify perceptions or experiences. The remaining studies assessed resources, or evaluated services, interventions, programs or policies. We were unable to identify primary outcomes in eight studies. Conclusion: Conducting Indigenous-focused primary health care research that is scientifically robust, culturally appropriate and produces community-level outcomes is challenging. We suggest that research teams use participatory, culturally sensitive approaches and collaborate closely to plan and implement high-quality research that incorporates local perspectives. Research should result in beneficial outcomes for the communities involved.
机译：研究的目的和重要性：需要针对原住民和托雷斯海峡岛民（原住民）的基础医疗保健研究，以确保重要的前线服务提供基于证据和文化上适当的护理。我们系统地审查了已出版的初级卫生保健文献，以确定研究设计，过程和结果，并评估侧重于社会和情感幸福的研究的科学质量。这将为将来的研究提供参考，以改进基于证据的，符合文化习惯的基本医疗保健。研究类型：根据PRISMA和MOOSE指南的系统评价。方法：检索4个数据库和1个土著项目网站，以进行定性，定量和混合方法研究。包括在初级卫生保健服务中进行的，着重于土著人民的社会和情感健康的研究。使用偏见风险评估工具对科学质量进行了评估，这些工具经过修改以满足我们的目标。我们通过确定研究开发，实施和报告过程中社区治理结构和代表性的参与来评估社区的接受程度。数据是使用为此审查开发的标准表格提取的。结果：我们纳入了32篇文章，其中有25篇研究报告了该研究。定性和混合方法用于18个研究中。十二篇文章被判定为偏倚风险高或不清楚，四篇为中度偏倚，五篇偏低。无法评估另外四项研究，因为它们与偏倚风险工具不符。在被判定为偏见风险低的五篇文章中，有两篇也获得了社区的高度认可，并且都具有定性。一种采用现象学方法，另一种采用社会生态学的观点将参与式行动研究结合在一起，并纳入了“双向学习”原则。在确定主要结果的16项研究中，有8项旨在确定看法或经验。其余研究评估资源，或评估服务，干预措施，计划或政策。我们无法在八项研究中确定主要结局。结论：开展以科学为基础，在文化上适当并能在社区一级取得成果的，针对土著居民的初级卫生保健研究具有挑战性。我们建议研究团队使用参与式，文化敏感的方法，并密切合作以计划和实施结合本地观点的高质量研究。研究应为相关社区带来有益的成果。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱：kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备：11010802029741号 ICP备案号：京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有

  • 客服微信

  • 服务号