In common with colonized Indigenous people worldwide, many Australian Aboriginal people experience inequitable health outcomes. While the commitment and advocacy of researchers and health practitioners has resulted in many notable improvements in policy and practice, systemic and structural impediments continue to restrain widespread gains in addressing Indigenous health injustices. We take Rheumatic Heart Disease (RHD), a potent marker of extreme health inequity, as a case study, and critically examine RHD practitioners' perspectives regarding the factors that need to be addressed to improve RHD prevention and care. This study is an important explanatory component of a broader study to inform new clinical practices, and health system strategies and policies to reduce RHD. A decolonising, critical medical anthropology (CMA) analysis of findings from 22 RHD practitioner in-depth interviews conducted in May 2016 revealed both practitioners' perceptions of health system shortcomings and a sense of hopelessness and powerlessness to transform existing health system inequities, the negative impacts of which were subsequently confirmed in a separate study of RHD patients' lived realities. We reveal how biomedical dominance, normalized deficit discourses and systemic racism influence the current policy and practice landscape, narrowing the intercultural space for productive dialogue and reinforcing the conditions that cause disease. To counter biomedical approaches that contribute to existing health inequities in health care, we recommend localized, strength-based, community-led research projects focused on actions that use critical decolonizing social science approaches to achieve system change. We demonstrate the importance of integrating biological and social sciences approaches in research, education/training, and practice to: 1) be guided by Indigenous strengths, knowledges and worldview, and 2) adopt a critical reflexive stance to examine systems, structures and practices. Such an approach facilitates productive cross-cultural dialogue and social transformation; providing direction and hope to practitioners, enhancing their knowledge, skills and capacity and improving Aboriginal health outcomes.

Background: Echocardiographic screening can detect asymptomatic cases of rheumatic heart disease (RHD), facilitating access to treatment. Barriers to implementation of echocardiographic screening include the requirement for expensive equipment and expert practitioners. We aimed to evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of an abbreviated echocardiographic screening protocol (single parasternal-long-axis view with a sweep of the heart) performed by briefly trained, nonexpert practitioners using handheld ultrasound devices. Methods: Participants aged 5 to 20 years in Timor-Leste and the Northern Territory of Australia had 2 echocardiograms: one performed by an expert echocardiographer using a GE Vivid I or Vivid Q portable ultrasound device (reference test), and one performed by a nonexpert practitioner using a GE Vscan handheld ultrasound device (index test). The accuracy of the index test, compared with the reference test, for identifying cases with definite or borderline RHD was determined. Results: There were 3111 enrolled participants; 2573 had both an index test and reference test. Median age was 12 years (interquartile range, 10–15); 58.2% were female. Proportion with definite or borderline RHD was 5.52% (95% CI, 4.70–6.47); proportion with definite RHD was 3.23% (95% CI, 2.61–3.98). Compared with the reference test, sensitivity of the index test for definite or borderline RHD was 70.4% (95% CI, 62.2–77.8), specificity was 78.1% (95% CI, 76.4–79.8). Conclusions: Nonexpert practitioners can be trained to perform single parasternal-long-axis view with a sweep of the heart echocardiography. However, the specificity and sensitivity are inadequate for echocardiographic screening. Improved training for nonexpert practitioners should be investigated.

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.

Research remains a site of struggle for First Nations peoples globally. Biomedical research often reinforces existing power structures, perpetuating ongoing colonisation by dominating research priorities, resource allocation, policies, and services. Addressing systemic health inequities requires decolonising methodologies to facilitate new understandings and approaches. These methodologies promote a creative tension and productive intercultural dialogue between First Nations and Western epistemologies. Concurrently, the potential of critical theory, social science, and community participatory action research approaches to effectively prioritise First Nations peoples’ lived experience within the biomedical worldview is increasingly recognised. This article describes learnings regarding research methods that enable a better understanding of the lived experience of rheumatic heart disease—an intractable, potent marker of health inequity for First Nations Australians, requiring long-term engagement in the troubled intersection between Indigenist and biomedical worldviews. Working with Yolŋu (Aboriginal) co-researchers from remote Northern Territory (Australia), the concept of ganma (turbulent co-mingling of salt and fresh water) was foundational for understanding and applying relationality (gurrutu), deep listening (nhina, nhäma ga ŋäma), and the use of metaphors—approaches that strengthen productive dialogue, described by Yolŋu co-researchers as weaving a ‘mat we can all sit on’. The research results are reported in a subsequent article.

Rheumatic heart disease (RHD), caused by acute rheumatic fever (ARF), is a major health problem in Australian Aboriginal communities. Progress in controlling RHD requires improvements in the delivery of secondary prophylaxis, which comprises regular, long-term injections of penicillin for people with ARF/RHD. This trial aims to improve uptake of secondary prophylaxis among Aboriginal people with ARF/RHD to reduce progression or worsening of RHD. This is a stepped-wedge, randomised trial in consenting communities in Australia’s Northern Territory. Pairs of randomly-chosen clinics from among those consenting enter the study at 3-monthly steps. The intervention to which clinics are randomised comprises a multi-faceted systems-based package, in which clinics are supported to develop and implement strategies to improve penicillin delivery, aligned with elements of the Chronic Care Model. Continuous quality improvement processes will be used, including 3-monthly feedback to clinic staff of adherence rates of their ARF/RHD clients. The primary outcome is the proportion of people with ARF/RHD receiving ≥80 % of scheduled penicillin injections over a minimum 12-month period. The sample size of 300 ARF/RHD clients across five community clusters will power the study to detect a 20 % increase in the proportion of individuals achieving this target, from a worrying low baseline of 20 %, to 40 %. Secondary outcomes pertaining to other measures of adherence will be assessed. Within the randomised trial design, a mixed-methods evaluation will be embedded to evaluate the efficiency, effectiveness, impact and relevance, sustainability, process and fidelity, and performance of the intervention. The evaluation will establish any causal link between outcomes and the intervention. The planned study duration is from 2013 to 2016. Continuous quality improvement has a strong track record in Australia’s Northern Territory, and its use has resulted in modest benefits in a pilot, non-randomised ARF/RHD study. If successful, this new intervention using the Chronic Care Model as a scaffold and evaluated using a well-developed theory-based framework, will provide a practical and transferable approach to ARF/RHD control. Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry: ACTRN12613000223730 . Date registered: 25 February 2013

Objective: A high prevalence of acute rheumatic fever (ARF) and rheumatic heart disease (RHD) among Aboriginal children in northern Australia is coupled with low understanding among families. This has negative impacts on children's health, limits opportunities for prevention and suggests that better health communication is needed. Methods: During an RHD echocardiography screening project, Aboriginal teachers in a remote community school created lessons to teach children about RHD in their home languages, drawing on principles of community‐led development. Access to community‐level RHD data, previously unknown to teachers and families, was a catalyst for this innovative work. Careful, iterative discussions among speakers of four Aboriginal languages ensured a culturally coherent narrative and accompanying teaching resources. Results: The evaluation demonstrated the importance of collective work, local Indigenous Knowledge and metaphors. As a result of the lessons, some children showed new responses and attitudes to skin infections and their RHD treatment. Language teachers used natural social networks to disseminate new information. A community interagency collaboration working to prevent RHD commenced. Conclusions and implications for public health: Action to address high rates of RHD must include effective health communication strategies that value Indigenous Knowledge, language and culture, collaborative leadership and respect for Indigenous data sovereignty.