Use of the CONSIDER statement by eye health researchers when conducting and reporting research involving Indigenous peoples: an online survey

Abstract

Background: Indigenous peoples experience worse eye health compared to non-Indigenous peoples. Service providers and researchers must avoid perpetuating this inequity. To help achieve this, researchers can use the CONSolIDated critERia for strengthening the reporting of health research involving Indigenous peoples (CONSIDER) statement. This study aimed to identify the degree to which the CONSIDER statement has been used by eye health researchers when conducting and reporting research with an Indigenous component, and how they perceive its relevance in their future research.

Methods: We used purposive sampling to recruit eye health researchers from any country who have undertaken research with an Indigenous component. The online survey collected quantitative and qualitative data and was analysed using descriptive statistics and reflexive thematic analysis. Responses were gathered on a four-point Likert scale (1 to 4), with four being the most positive statement.

Results: Thirty-nine eye health researchers from nine countries completed the survey (Aotearoa New Zealand, Argentina, Australia, Brazil, Canada, Colombia, Guatemala, Panama, Peru); almost two-thirds (n = 24) undertake epidemiological research. On average, participants disclosed only 'sometimes' previously reporting CONSIDER items (2.26 ± 1.14), but they thought the items were relevant to eye health research and were motivated to use these guidelines in their future research. Some participants requested clarity about how CONSIDER aligned with existing guidelines, and when and how to apply the statement. Others shared rich experiences of the benefits to their research of Indigenous leadership and collaboration.

Conclusions: The CONSIDER statement is perceived as a valuable tool by these eye health researchers, and there are opportunities to maximise uptake and use, including increasing awareness of the statement, clarity about when it applies, and availability of institutional-level support.

Fig. 1

Summary of participation among people commencing the survey.

Fig. 2. Perspectives on each CONSIDER item of 39 eye health researchers who have conducted research with an Indigenous component.

Green dots represent mean results for frequency of previous report (negative=never, positive=always), blue dots represent mean results for perceived relevance for eye health (negative = ‘not important, positive=very important), pink dots represent mean results for future intent to report (negative=very unlikely, positive=very likely). Error bars are standard error of the mean. Statement items are sorted by frequency of previous reporting (green).