Over the last decade, a massive increase in data collection and analysis has occurred in many fields. In the health sector, however, there has been relatively little progress in data analysis and application despite a rapid rise in data production. Given adequate governance, improvements in the quality, quantity, storage and analysis of health data could lead to substantial improvements in many health outcomes. In low- and middle-income countries in particular, the creation of an information feedback mechanism can move health-care delivery towards results-based practice and improve the effective use of scarce resources. We review the evolving definition of big data and the possible advantages of - and problems in - using such data to improve health-care delivery in low- and middle-income countries. The collection of big data as mobile-phone based services improve may mean that development phases required elsewhere can be skipped. However, poor infrastructure may prevent interoperability and the safe use of patient data. An appropriate governance framework must be developed and enforced to protect individuals and ensure that health-care delivery is tailored to the characteristics and values of the target communities.

■The RHD Endgame Strategy: the blueprint to eliminate rheumatic heart disease in Australia by 2031 (the Endgame Strategy) is the blueprint to eliminate rheumatic heart disease (RHD) in Australia b...

In Australia, Aboriginal children almost entirely bear the burden of acute rheumatic fever (ARF) which often leads to rheumatic heart disease (RHD), a significant marker of inequity in Indigenous and non-Indigenous health experiences. Efforts to eradicate RHD have been unsuccessful partly due to lack of attention to voices, opinions and understandings of the people behind the statistics. This systematic review presents a critical, interpretive analysis of publications that include lived experiences of RHD. The review approach was strengths-based, informed by privileging Indigenous knowledges, perspectives and experiences, and drawing on Postcolonialism and Critical Race Theory. Fifteen publications were analysed. Nine themes were organised into three domains which interact synergistically: sociological, disease specific and health service factors. A secondary sociolinguistic analysis of quotes within the publications articulated the combined impact of these factors as ‘collective trauma’. Paucity of qualitative literature and a strong biomedical focus in the dominant narratives regarding RHD limited the findings from the reviewed publications. Noteworthy omissions included: experiences of children/adolescents; evidence of Indigenous priorities and perspectives for healthcare; discussions of power; recognition of the centrality of Indigenous knowledges and strengths; and lack of critical reflection on impacts of a dominant biomedical approach to healthcare. Privileging a biomedical approach alone is to continue colonising Indigenous healthcare.