Skip to main content

Table 9 Critical appraisal of Aboriginal and/or Torres Strait Islander perspective within studies according to Harfield et al.’s [17] tool

From: Understanding co-production of injury research in Australian Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities: a comprehensive scoping review

Number

First author

Score percentage

Level of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander perspective capture

1

Angell [18]

32

None—low

2

Armstrong [19]

54

Medium

3

Bohanna [20]

36

Medium

4

Cheok [21]

39

Medium

5

Clapham [22]

68

High

6

Cochrane [23]

46

Medium

7

Coombes [24]

61

Medium

8

Cotter [25]

18

None—low

9

Dossetor [26]

46

Medium

10

Edmonston [27]

43

Medium

11

Esgin [28]

75

High

12

Falster [29]

7

None—low

13

Fraser [30]

57

Medium

14

Gauld [31]

71

High

15

Hill [32]

29

None—low

16

Katzenellenbogen [33]

7

None—low

17

Keel [34]

14

None—low

18

Lee [35]

18

None—low

19

LoGiudice [36]

21

None—low

20

Lukaszyk [37]

43

Medium

21

Lukaszyk [38]

54

Medium

22

Lukaszyk [39]

71

High

23

Lukaszyk [40]

0

None—low

24

Lukaszyk [41]

43

Medium

25

McAuley [42]

7

None—low

26

Moller [43]

14

None—low

27

Moller [44]

18

None—low

28

Moller [45]

7

None—low

29

Moller [46]

11

None—low

30

Phillips [47]

39

Medium

31

Ryder [48]

32

None—low

32

Ryder [49]

46

Medium

33

Schultz [50]

57

Medium

34

Shepherd [51]

14

None—low

35

Smith [3]

25

None—low

36

Thurber [52]

54

Medium

37

Veli-Gold [53]

57

Medium

38

Wallis [54]

11

None—low

39

Williams [55]

71

High