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

Summer May Finlay, Amohia Boulton, Helen Simpson, Bronwyn Fredericks, Yvette Roe, Jenni Judd, James A Smith, Janaya Pender, Margaret Cargo
{"title":"A scoping review of commissioning practices used in the evaluation of Indigenous health and wellbeing programs: Protocol article","authors":"Summer May Finlay, Amohia Boulton, Helen Simpson, Bronwyn Fredericks, Yvette Roe, Jenni Judd, James A Smith, Janaya Pender, Margaret Cargo","doi":"10.1177/1035719x231200050","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"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.","PeriodicalId":198148,"journal":{"name":"Evaluation of Journal of Australasia","volume":"144 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-09-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Evaluation of Journal of Australasia","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/1035719x231200050","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

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.
对土著人健康和福利方案评估中使用的委托做法进行范围审查:议定书第1条
尽管为改善澳大利亚土著居民的健康和福祉结果投入了数十亿美元,但几乎没有证据表明方案有效地为政策和实践提供了信息。缺乏评价是有问题的。对这一进程至关重要的是专员与土著人民的有效接触,这一点没有充分的记录。目前,关于所使用的调试实践模式的证据不足。这一范围审查的目的是确定在评估澳大利亚土著居民健康和福利方案时所使用的各种委托做法,并将其编纂成一套模型。文件(2008年至2020年)将从Scopus、Proquest、Informit、Google Scholar和基于网络的搜索中检索,该搜索涉及澳大利亚、新西兰、加拿大或美国土著健康和福利项目评估的委托。重要的是,研究团队由土著居民领导,项目的治理、质量和翻译框架将由包括土著同事在内的项目咨询小组提供信息。这将是全球首次进行范围审查,以确定委托对土著居民健康和福利方案进行评估所使用的做法。研究结果将用于加强澳大利亚和海外土著居民健康和福利方案的委托实践。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信