Commissioning stronger evaluations of Indigenous health and wellbeing programs: A scoping review of government and non-government Indigenous evaluation commissioning practices
Bibliographic record
Abstract
• 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.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.013 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.022 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".