Commissioning stronger evaluations of Indigenous health and wellbeing programs: A scoping review of government and non-government Indigenous evaluation commissioning practices
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
• Indigenous-led, delegative and co-design models of commissioning Indigenous health and wellbeing evaluation commissioning models are good practice. • Embedding of Indigenous values early is fundamental to good evaluation commissioning. • Poor commissioning practices negatively impact evaluation outcomes. • Commissioner cultural capability is vital to good practice commissioning principles. • Substantive Indigenous engagement across the Commissioning process is imperative. Calls for evidence-based Indigenous health and wellbeing policy and practice development have increased over the last few decades. Funded evaluations of health and wellbeing programs provide a vital contribution to generating the evidence required to support these aims. The utility of program evaluations in contributing to this evidence base is often adversely affected by the processes surrounding their commissioning. Despite the importance of commissioning processes to the efficacy of Indigenous health and wellbeing evaluations, to date there are no developed models to support and guide good practice. This scoping review systematically searched literature from Australia, Canada, Aotearoa New Zealand and the USA to identify government and non-government agencies commissioning practices of Indigenous health and wellbeing program evaluations. Through this review, commissioning practices were characterised according to Indigenous good practice principles, and gaps in current knowledge in these practices were identified. This review identified three key themes in commissioning practice: power, cultural safety and reciprocity. Through consideration of these principles, five models of current commissioning practice were defined: Indigenous-led, delegatory, co-design, participatory, and top down. The models represent a spectrum of Indigenous engagement, involvement and decision-making in the commissioning process, with Indigenous-led, delegatory and co-design being considered as good practice models, with higher levels of self-determination, power, respect, reciprocity and cultural safety. The defining of good practice models of evaluation commissioning provides a vital starting point to assist commissioners, evaluators and service providers in undertaking Indigenous health and wellbeing evaluations that both benefit Indigenous communities and provide much needed evidence to inform policy and commissioning practices. The defining of these models allows for further research into their practical application and opens possibilities for the development of guidelines to support better commissioning practice.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,013 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,022 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».