Search

Objective To better understand how to undertake valuable, ethical and sustainable randomised controlled clinical trial (RCT) research within Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander primary health services. Design In a qualitative approach, we utilised data collected between 2013 and 2020 during the planning and implementation of two RCTs. The data comprised agreed records of research meetings, and semistructured interviews with clinical trial stakeholders. The stakeholders were parents/carers of child participants, and site-based research officers, healthcare providers and community advisory groups. Our thematic analysis was informed by constructivist grounded theory. Setting The RCTs investigated the management of otitis media in Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children, with the first RCT commencing recruitment in 2014 and the second in 2017. They took place in Aboriginal Medical Services (AMSs), large primary health services for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people, based in urban and regional communities across two Australian states and one territory. Results We analysed data from 56 meetings and 67 interviews, generating themes on making research valuable and undertaking ethical and sustainable RCTs. Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander leadership, and support of AMSs in their service delivery function were critical. The broad benefits of the trials were considered important to sustainability, including workforce development, enhanced ear healthcare and multidirectional research capacity building. Participants emphasised the long-term responsibility of research teams to deliver benefits to AMSs and communities regardless of RCT outcomes, and to focus on relationships, reciprocity and creating positive experiences of research. Conclusion We identify principles and strategies to assist in undertaking ethical and sustainable RCTs within Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander primary health services. Maintaining relationships with AMSs and focusing o

Background Treatment guidelines recommend watchful waiting for children older than 2 years with acute otitis media (AOM) without perforation, unless they are at high risk of complications. The high prevalence of chronic suppurative otitis media (CSOM) in remote Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities leads these children to be classified as high risk. Urban Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children are at lower risk of complications, but evidence to support the subsequent recommendation for watchful waiting in this population is lacking. Methods/Design This non-inferiority multi-centre randomised controlled trial will determine whether watchful waiting is non-inferior to immediate antibiotics for urban Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children with AOM without perforation. Children aged 2 − 16 years with AOM who are considered at low risk for complications will be recruited from six participating urban primary health care services across Australia. We will obtain informed consent from each participant or their guardian. The primary outcome is clinical resolution on day 7 (no pain, no fever of at least 38 °C, no bulging eardrum and no complications of AOM such as perforation or mastoiditis) as assessed by general practitioners or nurse practitioners. Participants and outcome assessors will not be blinded to treatment. With a sample size of 198 children in each arm, we have 80 % power to detect a non-inferiority margin of up to 10 % at a significance level of 5 %, assuming clinical improvement of at least 80 % in both groups. Allowing for a 20 % dropout rate, we aim to recruit 495 children. We will analyse both by intention-to-treat and per protocol. We will assess the cost- effectiveness of watchful waiting compared to immediate antibiotic prescription. We will also report on the implementation of the trial from the perspectives of parents/carers, health professionals and researchers. Discussion The trial will provide evidence for the safety and e

As historians, archaeologists, and database analysts affiliated with the Database of Religious History (DRH; religiondatabase.org), we share with the Seshat: Global History Databank team, authors of a recent study published in Nature, an excitement about the potential for deep and sustained collaborations between historians and analysts to answer big questions about human history. We have serious concerns, however, by the approach to the quantitative coding of historical data taken by the Seshat team, as revealed in the backing data (seshatdatabank.info/nature), as well as by a lack of clarity concerning the degree of involvement of expert historians in the coding process. The apparent lack of appreciation for historical scholarship that this coding strategy displays runs the risk of permanently alienating the community of academic historians, who are essential future collaborators in any project devoted to large-scale historical data analysis. In the present commentary, we present a preliminary critical review of their latest article, “Complex Societies Precede Moralizing Gods Throughout World History” (2019).