Indigenous health program evaluation design and methods in Australia: a systematic review of the evidence

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: Indigenous Australians experience a disproportionately higher burden of disease compared to non-Indigenous Australians. High-quality evaluation of Indigenous health programs is required to inform health and health services improvement. We aimed to quantify methodological and other characteristics of Australian Indigenous health program evaluations published in the peer-reviewed literature. METHODS: Systematic review of peer-reviewed literature (November 2009-2014) on Indigenous health program evaluation. RESULTS: We identified 118 papers describing evaluations of 109 interventions; 72.0% were university/research institution-led. 82.2% of evaluations included a quantitative component; 49.2% utilised quantitative data only and 33.1% used both quantitative and qualitative data. The most common design was a before/after comparison (30.5%, n=36/118). 7.6% of studies (n=9/118) used an experimental design: six individual-level and three cluster-randomised controlled trials. 56.8% (67/118) reported on service delivery/process outcomes (versus health or health risk factor outcomes) only. CONCLUSIONS: Given the number of Indigenous health programs that are implemented, few evaluations overall are published in the peer-reviewed literature and, of these, few use optimal methodologies such as mixed methods and experimental design. Implications for public health: Multiple strategies are required to increase high-quality, accessible evaluation in Indigenous health, including supporting stronger research-policy-practice partnerships and capacity building for evaluation by health services and government.

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 53 citations exist upstream.

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.