0202411140500: Difference between revisions
(Created page with "{{item |type_parameter=research |description_parameter=First Nations Peoples endure disproportionate rates of stillbirth compared with non-First Nations Peoples. Previous interventions have aimed at reducing stillbirth in First Nations Peoples and providing better bereavement care without necessarily understanding the perceptions, knowledge and beliefs that could influence the design of the intervention and implementation. The aim of this review was to understand the...") |
wikispore>DaniellePollock m (I added the protocol link) |
||
| Line 11: | Line 11: | ||
|location_parameter=US, Canada, Aotearoa/New Zealand, and Australia | |location_parameter=US, Canada, Aotearoa/New Zealand, and Australia | ||
|location_link=No | |location_link=No | ||
|URL_parameter=https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wombi.2024.101604 | |URL_parameter=Full report: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wombi.2024.101604 | ||
Protocol: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/37609717/ | |||
|author_parameter={{author parameter | |author_parameter={{author parameter | ||
|aut_nam=Jack Nunn | |aut_nam=Jack Nunn | ||
Revision as of 01:10, 16 August 2024
State completed
Start 2024-01-01
End 2024-07-04
Form updated 2024-08-16
Inputs
Danielle Pollock (link)
ID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6604-0609
Task: Lead author
Compensation: paid
Advisory board of Aboriginal Elders, researchers, and clinicians.
Task: prioritising this topic and deeming it important for the community, providing feedback (either orally or written) throughout each stage of the review and input into the interpretation of the narrative summaries, identifying relevant evidence sources—in particular grey literature sources
Method: Formal advisory board
Communication: providing oral or written feedback
This review is part of a larger research project aimed at reducing stillbirth among Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples and is supported by an advisory board of Aboriginal Noongar Elders living on Whadjuk Noongar Boodja in Western Australia, researchers (including Aboriginal researchers and bereaved parents), and clinicians (midwives and obstetricians). The advisory board were involved in this review by prioritising this topic and deeming it important for the community; providing feedback (either orally or written) throughout each stage of the review and input into the interpretation of the narrative summaries and identifying relevant evidence sources—in particular grey literature sources.
Outputs and impacts
Open-access peer-reviewed systematic review (link)
Impact: highlights a gap in the evidence and the need for further investigations to gain a comprehensive understanding of the cultural perspectives surrounding stillbirth in First Nations communities
Learning relating to the importance of including First Nations researchers in stillbirth research and amplifying the voices of First Nations Peoples in research to ensure their perspectives and experiences are adequately represented.
Learning: highlights the importance of including First Nations researchers in stillbirth research and amplifying the voices of First Nations Peoples in research to ensure their perspectives and experiences are adequately represented
highlights the importance of including First Nations researchers in stillbirth research and amplifying the voices of First Nations Peoples in research to ensure their perspectives and experiences are adequately represented. By doing so, we can foster a more collaborative and culturally safe approach, which has the potential to pave the way for improved stillbirth prevention and bereavement care that aligns with the needs and values of these communities.
Methods:
This review was conducted in accordance with the JBI methodology for a convergent integrated mixed method systematic review. This review was overseen by an advisory board of Aboriginal Elders, researchers, and clinicians. A search of eight databases (PubMed, MEDLINE, PsycInfo, CINAHL, Embase, Emcare, Dissertations and Theses and Indigenous Health InfoNet) and grey literature was conducted. All studies were screened, extracted, and appraised for quality by two reviewers and results were categorised, and narratively summarised.