Co-creation of a student-implemented allied health service in a First Nations remote community of East Arnhem Land, Australia.
Ruth Barker, Susan Witt, Katrina Bird and 7 others
PMID 36378458WHAT IT FOUND
In a remote First Nations community, a co-created student allied health service was feasible and acceptable, but outcome measures did not show health impact.
Cultural consultants and flexible relationship building were central.
Key findings
01The service was feasible and acceptable: 29 service users were recruited, and retention and attendance were 100%.
02The two outcome measures did not demonstrate health impact and were difficult to administer because of language and cultural differences.
03Students delivered varied supports, including home assessments, equipment prescription, social participation activities, and carer resources such as a Yolŋu Sign Language booklet.
STILL TO COME
How it was doneWhat they foundWhat it means for OTsWhat it means for SLPs
Read the rest of this summary
You get three full summaries a month, free, and we do not ask for a card. Search, the TL;DRs and your library stay unlimited either way.
What it does not show
The service was evaluated in one remote region over a limited time, so the findings may not transfer to other communities. The paper did not show health impact because the outcome measures were not adequate; it reports feasibility and acceptability, not effectiveness. Interview findings came from a subset of service users and contributors, not everyone involved. A comparative analysis with usual care was still being developed, so the service was not compared with standard allied health services. Visiting allied health professionals raised concerns about the long-arm supervision model and integration with existing services.
Declared interests
The authors report no conflict of interest. The project was funded by grant and in-kind funding, and the authors alone were responsible for the content and writing of the article.
The easy way to misread this
Do not read feasibility and acceptability as evidence that the service improved health outcomes. The paper says outcome measures were not adequate to demonstrate health impact, and a comparative analysis with usual care was still being developed.