Search

Background: Virtual care has become an increasingly useful tool for the virtual delivery of care across the globe. With the unexpected emergence of COVID-19 and ongoing public health restrictions, it has become evident that the delivery of high-quality telemedicine is critical to ensuring the health and wellbeing of Indigenous peoples, especially those living in rural and remote communities., Methods: We conducted a rapid evidence review from August to December 2021 to understand how high quality Indigenous primary healthcare is defined in virtual modalities. After completing data extraction and quality appraisal, a total of 20 articles were selected for inclusion. The following question was used to guide the rapid review: How is high quality Indigenous primary healthcare defined in virtual modalities?, Results: We discuss key limitations to the delivery of virtual care, including the increasing cost of technology, lack of accessibility, challenges with digital literacy, and language barriers. This review further yielded four main themes that highlight Indigenous virtual primary healthcare quality: (1) limitations and barriers of virtual primary healthcare, (2) Indigenous-centred virtual primary healthcare, (3) virtual Indigenous relationality, (4) collaborative approaches to ensuring holistic virtual care., Discussion: For virtual care to be Indigenous-centred, Indigenous leadership and users need to be partners in the development, implementation and evaluation of the intervention, service or program. In terms of virtual models of care, time must be allocated to educate Indigenous partners on digital literacy, virtual care infrastructure, benefits and limitations. Relationality and culture must be prioritized as well as digital health equity., Conclusion: These findings highlight important considerations for strengthening virtual primary healthcare approaches to meet the needs of Indigenous peoples worldwide., (© 2023. The Author(s).)

Objectives: To (1) apply the Framework to Assess the Impact from Translational health research (FAIT) to Lessons from the Best to Better the Rest (LFTB), (2) report on impacts from LFTB and (3) assess the feasibility and outcomes from a retrospective application of FAIT., Setting: Three Indigenous primary healthcare (PHC) centres in the Northern Territory, Australia; project coordinating centre distributed between Townsville, Darwin and Cairns and the broader LFTB learning community across Australia., Participants: LFTB research team and one representative from each PHC centre., Primary and Secondary Outcome Measures: Impact reported as (1) quantitative metrics within domains of benefit using a modified Payback Framework, (2) a cost-consequence analysis given a return on investment was not appropriate and (3) a narrative incorporating qualitative evidence of impact. Data were gathered through in-depth stakeholder interviews and a review of project documentation, outputs and relevant websites., Results: LFTB contributed to knowledge advancement in Indigenous PHC service delivery; enhanced existing capacity of health centre staff, researchers and health service users; enhanced supportive networks for quality improvement; and used a strengths-based approach highly valued by health centres. LFTB also leveraged between $A1.4 and $A1.6 million for the subsequent Leveraging Effective Ambulatory Practice (LEAP) Project to apply LFTB learnings to resource development and creation of a learning community to empower striving PHC centres., Conclusion: Retrospective application of FAIT to LFTB, although not ideal, was feasible. Prospective application would have allowed Indigenous community perspectives to be included. Greater appreciation of the full benefit of LFTB including a measure of return on investment will be possible when LEAP is complete. Future assessments of impact need to account for the limitations of fully capturing impact when intermediate/final impacts have not yet been realised and captured., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2021. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)