Objective: Pacific Island countries are experiencing a high burden of diet-related non-communicable diseases; and consumption of fat, sugar and salt are important modifiable risk factors contributing to this. The present study systematically reviewed and summarized available literature on dietary intakes of fat, sugar and salt in the Pacific Islands.Design: Electronic databases (PubMed, Scopus, ScienceDirect and GlobalHealth) were searched from 2005 to January 2018. Grey literature was also searched and key stakeholders were consulted for additional information. Study eligibility was assessed by two authors and quality was evaluated using a modified tool for assessing dietary intake studies.Results: Thirty-one studies were included, twenty-two contained information on fat, seventeen on sugar and fourteen on salt. Dietary assessment methods varied widely and six different outcome measures for fat, sugar and salt intake – absolute intake, household expenditure, percentage contribution to energy intake, sources, availability and dietary behaviours – were used. Absolute intake of fat ranged from 25·4 g/d in Solomon Islands to 98·9 g/d in Guam, while salt intake ranged from 5·6 g/d in Kiribati to 10·3 g/d in Fiji. Only Guam reported on absolute sugar intake (47·3 g/d). Peer-reviewed research studies used higher-quality dietary assessment methods, while reports from national surveys had better participation rates but mostly utilized indirect methods to quantify intake.Conclusions: Despite the established and growing crisis of diet-related diseases in the Pacific, there is inadequate evidence about what Pacific Islanders are eating. Pacific Island countries need nutrition monitoring systems to fully understand the changing diets of Pacific Islanders and inform effective policy interventions.

Introduction A freely available, culturally valid depression screening tool is required for use by primary care services across Australia to screen for depression in Aboriginal and/or Torres Strait Islander populations. This is the protocol for a study aiming to determine the validity, sensitivity and specificity of the culturally adapted 9-item Patient Health Questionnaire (aPHQ-9). Methods and analysis Cross-sectional validation study. A total of 500 people who self-identify as Aboriginal and/or Torres Strait Islander, are ≥18 years of age, attending 1 of 10 primary healthcare services or service events across Australia and able to communicate sufficiently to answer study questions will be recruited. All participants will complete the aPHQ-9 and the criterion standard MINI International Neuropsychiatric Interview (MINI) 6.0.0. The primary outcome is the criterion validity of the aPHQ-9. Process outcomes related to acceptability and feasibility of the aPHQ-9 will be analysed only if the measure is found to be valid. Ethics and dissemination Lead ethical approval was obtained jointly from the University of Sydney Human Research Ethics Committee (project 2014/361) and the Aboriginal Health and Medical Research Council of New South Wales (project 1044/14). Results will be disseminated via the usual scientific forums, including peer-reviewed publications and presentations at international conferences following presentation to, discussion with and approval by participating primary healthcare service staff and community. Trial registration number ACTRN12614000705684.

Objective: To provide an overview of published research on the dietary intake of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples. Methods: Peer‐reviewed literature from 1990 to October 2016 was searched to identify studies that measured the dietary intake of Australian Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander populations. Study quality was assessed using a purposely devised quality appraisal tool. Meta‐analysis was not possible due to the heterogeneity in dietary intake assessment methods. A narrative synthesis of study findings, where key themes were compared and contrasted was completed. Results: Twenty‐five articles from twenty studies with outcome measures related to dietary intake were included. Dietary intake was assessed by electronic store sales, store turnover method, 24‐hour dietary recall, food frequency questionnaire and short questions. Consistent findings were low reported intakes of fruit and vegetables and high intakes of total sugar and energy‐dense, nutrient‐poor food and beverages. Conclusions: While differences between studies and study quality limit the generalisability of the findings, most studies suggest that the diets of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples are inadequate. Implications for public health: A more concerted approach to understanding dietary patterns of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples is required to inform policy and practice to improve diet and nutrition.

Research with a focus on Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Australian’s (hereafter referred to as Indigenous1) needs is crucial to ensure culturally appropriate evidence-based strategies are developed to improve health. However, concerns surrounding this research exist, arising from some previous research lacking community consultation, resulting in little community benefit or infringing on important cultural values. Values and Ethics: Guidelines for Ethical conduct in Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Health Research (hereafter referred to as Values and Ethics), developed by The National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia in 2003, is the ethical standard for Indigenous-focused health research. Researchers must address its Values in research design and conduct. However, its impact on research processes is unclear. Local Protocols should also be considered. This review aims to systematically examine practices related to Values and Ethics, Local Protocols and the processes of conducting Indigenous-focused primary healthcare research in collaboration with external researchers. The following electronic databases and grey literature will be searched (2003 to current): MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, Informit and HealthInfoNet—an Indigenous-specific research and program website. Indigenous-focused research will be included. Research must be conducted in one or more primary healthcare services, in collaboration with external researchers and with a focus on social and emotional well being. One reviewer will review titles and abstracts to remove obviously irrelevant research articles. Full-text research articles will be retrieved and independently examined by two reviewers. Data and quality assessment will be completed by one reviewer and verified by a second reviewer. Quality will be assessed using modified versions of established quality assessment tools. This review will provide information on research processes and the impact of Values and Ethics on Indigenous-focused primary healthcare research, informing communities and primary healthcare staff around research practices, and researchers and policy makers of strengths and weaknesses of practice. PROSPERO CRD42015024994

Background: Research can inform culturally-appropriate care to strengthen social and emotional wellbeing (SEWB) among Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander (hereafter, the term ‘Indigenous Peoples’ is respectfully used and refers to all Aboriginal and/or Torres Strait Islander Peoples of Australia). We acknowledge the cultural diversity of Australia’s Indigenous First Peoples and they do not represent a homogenous group.) (hereafter Indigenous) Peoples. We explore the perspectives of primary healthcare staff and Indigenous patients about their willingness to and experiences participating in SEWB research. Method: Process evaluation using grounded theory approaches of Getting it Right: The validation study, a national validation designed Indigenous SEWB research project (N = 500). Primary healthcare staff (n = 36) and community members (n = 4) from nine of ten primary healthcare services involved with the research project completed qualitative semi-structured interviews. Interview data were triangulated with participant feedback (responses to structured questions and free-text feedback collected during Getting it Right), study administrative data (participant screening logs, communication logs, study protocol, deviation logs and ethics correspondence) and interviewer field notes. Results: Three themes about staff, patient and community perspectives concerning research participation developed: (1) considering the needs, risk, preferences and impact of participation in research for staff, patients and community; (2) building staff confidence speaking to patients about research and SEWB problems and (3) patients speaking openly about their SEWB. Some staff described pressure to ensure patients had a positive experience with the research, to respond appropriately if patients became upset or SEWB problems were identified during interviews, or due to their dual role as community member and researcher. Patients and staff reported that patients were more likely to participate if they knew the staff outside of the service, especially staff with a shared cultural background, and they perceived SEWB as a community priority. Staff reported their skills speaking to patients about the research and SEWB improved during the research, which built their confidence. Contrary to staff preconceptions, staff and patients reported that many patients appreciated the opportunity to speak about their SEWB and contributing to research that may eventually enhance SEWB in their community. Conclusion: Our research project was considered acceptable by most staff and patients. The positive outcomes reported by staff and feedback from patients highlights the importance of providing opportunities for people to speak about their SEWB and for research-informed SEWB PHC care. Trial registration: Getting it Right is registered on ANZCTR12614000705684.

Introduction: Process evaluations are conducted alongside research projects to identify the context, impact and consequences of research, determine whether it was conducted per protocol and to understand how, why and for whom an intervention is effective. We present a process evaluation protocol for the Getting it Right research project, which aims to determine validity of a culturally adapted depression screening tool for use by Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people. In this process evaluation, we aim to: (1) explore the context, impact and consequences of conducting Getting It Right, (2) explore primary healthcare staff and community representatives’ experiences with the research project, (3) determine if it was conducted per protocol and (4) explore experiences with the depression screening tool, including perceptions about how it could be implemented into practice (if found to be valid). We also describe the partnerships established to conduct this process evaluation and how the nationalValues and Ethics: Guidelines for Ethical Conduct in Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Health Researchis met.Methods and analysis: Realist and grounded theory approaches are used. Qualitative data include semistructured interviews with primary healthcare staff and community representatives involved with Getting it Right. Iterative data collection and analysis will inform a coding framework. Interviews will continue until saturation of themes is reached, or all participants are considered. Data will be triangulated against administrative data and patient feedback. An Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Advisory Group guides this research. Researchers will be blinded from validation data outcomes for as long as is feasible.Ethics and dissemination: The University of Sydney Human Research Ethics Committee, Aboriginal Health and Medical Research Council of New South Wales and six state ethics committees have approved this research. Findings will be submitted to academic journals and presented at conferences.Trial registration number: <jats:ext-link xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink" xlink:href="<%22ACTRN12614000705684%22" ext-link-type="uri">ACTRN12614000705684.