The commercial determinants of health (CDoH) are a rapidly growing field of research and global health priority. Despite being disproportionately affected, Indigenous Peoples’ voices and perspectives are conspicuously absent from CDoH research and policy. This article outlines the protocol for Addressing Commercial Health determinants: Indigenous Empowerment and Voices for Equity (ACHIEVE), an Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander-led project in Australia.

ACHIEVE integrates four research streams, using a novel combination of methods. The first three streams will (i) conceptualise the CDoH using Indigenous yarning methodology, (ii) evaluate the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of policies to reduce exposure to harmful marketing and (iii) assess the impacts of specific commercial entities on Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander health using case studies. The final stream will consolidate findings from streams 1–3 and work with Aboriginal Community Controlled Health Organisations (ACCHOs) to co-create strategies for addressing the commercial determinants of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander health.

Ethical approval for streams 1–3 has been granted by Deakin University Human Research Ethics Committee. ACHIEVE is guided by a governance model that prioritises Indigenous data sovereignty, community and ACCHO partnerships, capacity building and knowledge translation. Findings will be shared with participants, ACCHOs and policymakers to maximise research impact.

In 2023, 21% of deaths occurred in residential aged care facilities (RACFs), a setting expected to play an increasing role in palliative and end-of-life care (PEoLC). General practitioners (GPs) oversee and deliver PEoLC in residential and nursing homes, yet little is known about their practice. We conducted a systematic review of the published evidence concerning how GPs provide this care: what they do and the quality, challenges and facilitators of that care.

Systematic review and narrative synthesis using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses.

Medline, Embase, CINAHL, PsycINFO, Web of Science, Scopus and NHS Evidence and grey literature via Google Scholar were searched through 9 October 2024.

We included studies presenting new empirical data from qualitative, quantitative or mixed methods, were published in the English language and conducted in the UK, the European Union, Australia, New Zealand and Canada. We excluded studies with no new empirical data, discussion papers, conference abstracts, opinion pieces, study participants under 18 years old and in care settings other than RACF.

One independent reviewer used standardised methods to search and screen study titles for inclusion. This reviewer assessed all abstracts of the included papers, and a second independent reviewer screened 60% of the abstracts to validate inclusion. Risk of bias was assessed using Gough’s Weight of Evidence assessment. Thematic analysis was used to describe the contents of the included papers; a narrative synthesis approach was taken to report the findings at a more conceptual level.

The search identified 5936 titles: 35 papers were eligible and included in the synthesis. This is a nascent evidence base, lacking robust research designs and characterised by small sample sizes; the results describe the factors observed to be important in the delivery of care. Care provision is extremely variable; no models of optimal care have been put forward or tested. Challenges to care provision occur at every level of the care system. At macro level, service-level agreements and policies vary: at meso level, team-working, communication technology solutions and equipment availability vary: at micro level, GPs’ interests in providing PEoLC vary as does their training. No study addresses residents’ and relatives’ experiences and expectations of GPs' involvement in PEoLC in RACFs.

The limited evidence base highlights that GP care at end of life for RACF residents varies greatly, with enablers and challenges at all levels in the existing care systems. Little research has examined GP PEoLC for RACF residents in its own right; insight is derived from studies that report on this issue as an adjunct to the main focus. With national policies focused on moving more PEoLC into community settings, these knowledge deficits require urgent attention.

Cluster analysis, a machine learning-based and data-driven technique for identifying groups in data, has demonstrated its potential in a wide range of contexts. However, critical appraisal and reproducibility are often limited by insufficient reporting, ultimately hampering the interpretation and trust of key stakeholders. The present paper describes the protocol that will guide the development of a reporting guideline and checklist for studies incorporating cluster analyses—Transparent Reporting of Cluster Analyses.

Following the recommended steps for developing reporting guidelines outlined by the Enhancing the QUAlity and Transparency Of health Research Network, the work will be divided into six stages. Stage 1: literature review to guide development of initial checklist. Stage 2: drafting of the initial checklist. Stage 3: internal revision of checklist. Stage 4: Delphi study in a global sample of researchers from varying fields (n=) to derive consensus regarding items in the checklist and piloting of the checklist. Stage 5: consensus meeting to consolidate checklist. Stage 6: production of statement paper and explanation and elaboration paper. Stage 7: dissemination via journals, conferences, social media and a dedicated web platform.

Due to local regulations, the planned study is exempt from the requirement of ethical review. The findings will be disseminated through peer-reviewed publications. The checklist with explanations will also be made available freely on a dedicated web platform (troca-statement.org) and in a repository.