Back to Search Start Over

Policy context and narrative leading to the commissioning of the Australian Indigenous Burden of Disease study

Authors :
Botfield, JR
Zwi, AB
Hill, PS
Botfield, JR
Zwi, AB
Hill, PS
Publication Year :
2015

Abstract

9 Background: Burden of disease (BoD) studies have been conducted in numerous international settings since the10 early 1990’s. Two national BoD studies have been undertaken in Australia, in 1998 and 2003, although neither study11 estimated the BoD specifically for Indigenous Australians. In 2005 the Australian Government Department of Health12 and Ageing Office for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Health formally commissioned the University of13 Queensland to undertake, in parallel with the second national BoD study, the “Burden of Disease and Injury in14 Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples” study, drawing on available data up to 2003. This paper is part of a15 broader NHMRC-funded project that examines the uptake of evidence to policy, using the 2007 Indigenous BoD16 (IBoD) study as a case study.17 This study aims to explore the policy context and narrative in the lead up to commissioning the IBoD study,18 focusing on relevant contextual factors and insights regarding the perspectives and anticipated value of the study19 by key stakeholders.20 Methods: A systematic review of the literature was undertaken in late 2013 and early 2014, and the findings21 triangulated with 38 key informant interviews with Indigenous and non-Indigenous academics, researchers, statisticians,22 policy advisors, and policymakers, conducted between 2011 and 2013.23 Findings: Contextual features which led to commissioning the IBoD study included widespread recognition of24 longstanding Indigenous disadvantage, lower life expectancy than non-Indigenous Australians, and the lack of25 an adequate evidence base upon which to determine priorities for interventions. Several anticipated benefits26 and expectations of key stakeholders were identified. Most informants held at least one of the following expectations27 of the study: that it would inform the evidence base, contribute to priority setting, and/or inform policy. There28 were differing or entirely contrasting views to

Details

Database :
OAIster
Publication Type :
Electronic Resource
Accession number :
edsoai.on1031069572
Document Type :
Electronic Resource