QAT Tool

Harfield, S., Pearson, O., Morey, K., Kite, E., Canuto, K., Glover, K., Gomersall, J. S., Carter, D., Davy, C., Aromataris, E., & Braunack-Mayer, A. (2020). Assessing the quality of health research from an Indigenous perspective: the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander quality appraisal tool. BMC Medical Research Methodology, 20(1), 79.

🔗 https://doi.org/10.1186/s12874-020-00959-3

Foundational article introduces the QAT, a 14-item framework developed with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander scholars and community experts to assess health research from an Indigenous perspective. The tool foregrounds Indigenous governance, community engagement, cultural and intellectual property, and strength-based approaches, offering an alternative to conventional appraisal frameworks.

IPHCPR Network Featured Publication

Wessel, S., Williams, K., Gray, M., Bagshaw, S. M., Bowker, S. L., Elliott, S. A., Ferrow, L., Henderson, R. I., Loewen, K., McNeil, D. A., Volk, A., Walker, J., & Oster, R. T. (2025). Exploring the use of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander quality appraisal tool in Indigenous health research. BMC Medical Research Methodology, 25(1), 94.

🔗 https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11987300/

Reports on the use of the QAT by four Canadian research teams, including IPHCPR Network-affiliated projects, applying the tool retrospectively within systematic and scoping reviews. The authors describe both the value and limitations of the QAT in non-Australian contexts, noting challenges related to inconsistent reporting, interpretation, and the difficulty of capturing relational and place-based Indigenous knowledges within published literature. The paper frames the QAT as a useful but evolving tool that requires contextual adaptation and early integration into research design.

Response Article

Harfield, S., Pearson, O., Morey, K., Glover, K., & Canuto, K. (2025). Review of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Quality Appraisal Tool in Indigenous settings outside of Australia. BMC Medical Research Methodology, 25(1), 93.

🔗 https://doi.org/10.1186/s12874-025-02538-w

In this response to Wessel et al., the original QAT authors reflect on the Canadian application of the tool. They acknowledge key limitations, including the need for stronger attention to positionality, relationality, and reciprocity, and support calls for context-specific adaptation. The response situates the QAT as part of an ongoing, international methodological conversation rather than a fixed or universal standard.