key: cord-0838629-fmcfgs7c
authors: Trudgett, Skye; Griffiths, Kalinda; Farnbach, Sara; Shakeshaft, Anthony
title: A framework for operationalising Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander data sovereignty in Australia: Results of a systematic literature review of published studies
date: 2022-02-17
journal: EClinicalMedicine
DOI: 10.1016/j.eclinm.2022.101302
sha: 0477710ef63e99840376d2504fba05f5a58a3bfd
doc_id: 838629
cord_uid: fmcfgs7c

BACKGROUND: Racial health disparities are only likely to be meaningfully improved by tailoring public health and clinical interventions to the specific needs of Indigenous people and their communities. Accurate tailoring relies on the availability of high-quality Indigenous-specific data. The potential benefits of increased availability of Indigenous data need to be balanced by efforts to ensure those data are collected and used appropriately. This paper identifies characteristics of Indigenous Data Sovereignty (IDS) principles and considers a framework for operationalisation. METHODS: A PRISMA compliant search of the literature was undertaken, using methods detailed in the Cochrane Collaboration Handbook on Systematic Reviews of Health Promotion and Public Health Interventions (1). The search strategy comprised two steps: a search of 11 scientific electronic databases and five grey literature sources. The search was limited by date of publication (1 January 2000 to 1 December 2021). The following keywords and subject heading terms were used: (exp Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander or Aborigin* or Torres Strait Island* or, Oceanic ancestry group) and (exp research or biomedical research or population surveillance or translational medical research or, research design) and (exp data or datasets or data collection or data management or health surveys or information dissemination or, intellectual property) and (exp self-determination or ownership or control or access or possession or OCAP or sovereignty or, ethics) and, (exp Australia). IDS principles: (i) ownership; (ii) control; (iii) accessibility; (iv) custodianship; (v) accountability to Indigenous people; (vi) amplify Community voice; (vii) relevant and reciprocal; and (viii) sustainably self-determining. Using standard data extraction forms, we examined relevant Australian studies to identify key characteristics and frequency with which they cited IDS principles. These findings were consolidated into an operationalisation framework. FINDINGS: 34 relevant Australian published studies were identified. The most frequently cited IDS principles were Accountability to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples and sustainably self-determining. The least frequently cited principle was Access. A framework to operationalise IDS principles is proposed that is both standardised internationally and able to be tailored to the diverse contexts of Indigenous peoples. INTERPRETATION: IDS is emergent in Australia and there is a clear need to establish an agreed set of International IDS principles and a framework for their operationalisation and contextualisation across diverse Indigenous communities and contexts. FUNDING: This research project is funded through an Australian Research Council (ARC) Discovery Grant from 2017 to 2022. The National Drug and Alcohol Research Centre (NDARC) is funded by the Australian Government Department of Health. The 1st author (ST) is supported by a scholarship co-funded by NDARC and the Lowitja Institute.

There is clear evidence of practically meaningful health and socio-economic disparities between Indigenous 1 and non-Indigenous populations globally: a systematic review by The Lancet-Lowitja Institute Global Collaboration identified a range of indicators that were all poorer for Indigenous populations: life expectancy, infant mortality, maternal mortality, low and high birthweight, child malnutrition, child and adult obesity, educational attainment, and economic status. That review recommended that governments develop targeted policy responses that are informed by, and evaluated with, higher quality Indigenous data. Although there is an obvious need for high quality, Indigenous-specific data, it is also critical to ensure that those data are collected and used appropriately, especially given the increased utilisation of administrative data for monitoring and research purposes, and the emerging ability to routinely link across different databases.

National statistical systems commonly fail to recognise the human rights and worldviews of Indigenous peoples through the generation and primacy of data which is inherently biased and not reflective of Indigenous worldviews, experiences, or priorities. Such data which are generated about Indigenous peoples is then protected within a Western system of privacy and licencing law, rendering the realisation of collective ownership and self-governance, impossible. 4 Furthermore, these data resources are commonly used by researchers, Government departments and statistical agencies in conducting analyses and decision making, which play a subtle yet significant role in influencing broader societal conceptualisations of Indigenous peoples, communities, lands, resources, and Culture. 5 This exploitation, misinterpretation and misuse of Indigenous data is commonplace, there are many examples of Indigenous peoples being blamed for experiencing inequities, rather than acknowledging that many outcomes are in fact the result of longstanding and ongoing social, cultural and racial injustices. 2,3,6−15 Such examples from academics and Indigenous leaders have established a growing recognition of the need to protect against the misuse of data generally has given rise to the concept of data sovereignty, defined as the need to ensure information is managed according to ". . .the laws, practices and customs of the nation-state in which it is located. 16 " Indigenous Data Sovereignty (IDS) requires Indigenous data to be similarly managed. As for nation states, IDS is not a single concept but could vary depending on the practices and customs of different Indigenous communities and Indigenous controlled services. This means that attempts to operationalise IDS need to be sufficiently flexible to allow for different data management practices.

The development of key IDS concepts has been informed by three sets of principles published from Canada, New Zealand and Australia (the United States of America's IDS Network is currently developing its own principles), and two landmark workshops convened in Australia (2015 in Canberra and 2017 in Melbourne). One set of principles is Canada's Ownership,

Evidence before this study A PRISMA compliant search of the English language literature, published between 1 January 2000 and 1 December 2021, was undertaken in two steps. First, a search of 11 scientific electronic databases (AIATSIS, APA-ATSIS, APAIS-Health, CINAHL, EBM Review CDS, Embase, Emcare, Global Health, Medline, PAIS and, PsychINFO). Second, a search of five grey literature databases (Health Infonet, Lowitja Institute, Australian Government Productivity, Austlit & APO Online). The keywords and subject heading terms used were: (exp Indigenous or Aborigin* or Torres Strait Island* or Oceanic ancestry group) and (exp research or biomedical research or population surveillance or translational medical research or research design) and (exp data or datasets or data collection or data management or health surveys or information dissemination or intellectual property) and (exp self-determination or ownership or control or access or possession or OCAP or sovereignty or ethics) and (exp Australia). Thirty-four studies were identified for analysis.

Previous studies have rightly advocated for a wider range, and improved quality, of Indigenous data to help reduce the existing health and socio-economic inequalities between Indigenous and non-Indigenous people globally. This study highlights the need to ensure these expanded Indigenous data are protected from misuse. Given Indigenous Data Sovereignty (IDS) is an emerging mechanism to protect Indigenous data, examining the current use of IDS principles and how these principles might be operationalised in practice is a timely contribution to inform future deliberations of IDS by Indigenous experts.

Some principles of IDS are cited much more frequently than others which either means there needs to be greater focus on all IDS principles in the published research literature, or that it would be useful for IDS experts to review the ongoing relevance of the least frequently cited IDS principles. A framework to help operationalise the IDS principles would be helpful in activating IDS. Such a framework needs to be both standardised internationally and able to be tailored to the needs and specific circumstances of different Nations, Indigenous communities, and Indigenous service providers. 1 Within this paper, the term 'Indigenous' is used to refer to First Peoples globally, including Aboriginal peoples and Torres Strait Islander Australians.

Control, Access and Possession (OCAP) paradigm. 17 A second set is New Zealand's Aotearoa-Te Mana Raraunga principles, which comprise Whanaungatanga and Whakapapa (a focus on the primacy of the relationship between people, the natural world and the spiritual powers of the natural world), Rangatiratanga (a focus on self-determination), Kotahitanga (a focus on collective vision), Manaakitanga (a focus on basic rights) and Kaitiakitanga (a focus on stewardship and sustainability of culture) . 18 A third set is Australia's Maiam nayri Wingara (MnW) principles, which emerged from a process of mapping the principles from OCAP, Aotearoa-Te Mana Raraunga and the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. These principles assert the right of Torres Strait Islander people to: control their own data ecosystem; access their own data in different formats; collect and analyse data in a way that is self-determining and sustainable; define the relevance of data to their own concerns; ensure advantageous reciprocity in the use of their data; promote accountability in the use of their data; and guarantee that the use of their data is protective of their individual and collective interests. 19 The 2017 Melbourne workshop also identified amplification of community voice as central to IDS. 20 In addition to the articulation of these IDS principles, Indigenous networks have been established since 2013 specifically to promote IDS. These networks include the International IDS Interest Group (established by the European Commission, and the United States (US) and Australian governments), the US IDS Network, British Columbia's Indigenous Data Governance Initiative in Canada, the Te Mana Raraunga Maori Data Sovereignty Network in New Zealand and the MnW Indigenous Data Sovereignty Collective in Australia. IDS is practiced through Indigenous Data Governance (IDG), which asserts First Nation's interests in relation to data by: determining when, how and why our data are gathered, analysed, accessed, and used; and ensuring Indigenous data reflects First Nation's defined priorities, values, culture, worldviews, and diversity. IDS and IDG address the recognised connection between Indigenous development agendas and data as a resource. So whilst there is strong recognition of the need to protect against the misuse of data in the general sense, deeper conceptualisation and implementation is required to ensure that the concepts of IDS and IDG move beyond theory and into practice through the operationalisation and use of Indigenous data in line with the principles of self-determination and the rights of Indigenous peoples. [1] [2] [3] 41 Having established IDS principles and appropriate networks to promote their real-world application, it is timely to critically examine the current use of IDS principles and explore how they might be operationalised to optimise their pragmatic value to IDS experts, services, communities, and individuals. Although the design of an internationally relevant framework would be highly useful for providing a mechanism to standardise the operationalisation of IDS across countries, the practical application of IDS principles will have to be countryspecific because, just like the IDS principles themselves, they will inevitably have to be applied through the national, community and individual-level structures that exist in different countries, such as the country-specific treaties or agreements between governments and their Indigenous people.

Consequently, this systematic review has three aims: to identify published Australian IDS-relevant studies; to describe the key characteristics of the identified papers and identify the frequency with which they cite the existing IDS principles; and to draft a framework for how IDS principles might be operationalised that is both able to be standardised internationally and adapted to the specific circumstances of Australia and other countries. 

A PRISMA compliant search of the literature was undertaken, using methods detailed in the Cochrane Collaboration Handbook on Systematic Reviews of Health Promotion and Public Health Interventions. 1 The search strategy comprised two steps: a search of 11 scientific electronic databases (AIATSIS, APA-ATSIS, APAIS-Health, CINAHL, EBM Review CDS, Embase, Emcare, Global Health, Medline, PAIS and, Psy-chINFO); and five grey literature sources (APO Online, Austlit, Australian Government's Productivity Commission, HealthInfonet and, Lowitja Instiute). The search was limited by date of publication (One January 2000 to One December 2021). The following keywords and subject heading terms were used: (exp Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander or Aborigin* or Torres Strait Island* or, Oceanic ancestry group) and (exp research or biomedical research or population surveillance or translational medical research or, research design) and (exp data or datasets or data collection or data management or health surveys or information dissemination or, intellectual property) and (exp self-determination or ownership or control or access or possession or OCAP or sovereignty or, ethics) and, (exp Australia). As summarised in Figure 1 , the search of the electronic and grey literature databases identified 6592 unique studies after removing 1508 duplicates.

The titles of these 6592 unique studies were manually reviewed by the lead author, or their abstract was examined if the title was insufficiently informative, to assess their relevance against three exclusion criteria: i) not an Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander focus (n = 721 studies excluded); ii) not an IDS focus (n = 5833 studies excluded); and, iii) not an Australian study (n = 4 studies excluded). 6558 studies were excluded, leaving 34 studies for in-depth appraisal. An independent review of papers for relevance was conducted by an unnamed author, the reviewer examined the coded reference Review library of excluded studies, a minimum of 10% of each exclusion criteria was reviewed. There were no instances of discordance.

As summarised in Table 1 , eight principles arose from synthesising the published principles from Australia, New Zealand, Canada and discourse from the 2017 Indigenous IDS Symposium. 17, 18, 21 In this review, the authors used these synthesised principles to identify the extent to which they are discussed in the Australian IDS literature. The two IDS principles identified most frequently were accessibility of Indigenous data and ensuring Indigenous data are used to amplify the voice of Indigenous people and, communities (n=three of these four sources each). The next three most common IDS principles (n = 2 sources each) were control, custodianship, and self-determination. The least cited IDS principles (n = 1 source each) were ownership, accountability and, the extent to which the data are relevant and reciprocal.

The full-text version of the 34 IDS-relevant studies were critically examined by the lead author. First, their key characteristics were summarised (first author, year published, study type, aims, methods, summary of results and the specific type of IDS principle cited, either explicitly or implicitly). Study type was determined using categories adapted from previous reviews by the authors 22

: (i) reviews, defined as any type of literature review (e.g., narrative, systematic) that aims to collate or synthesise the content of published papers on IDS; (ii) descriptive, defined as descriptions of attitudes to IDS or IDS guidelines, issues related to the management of Indigenous data, or the application of one or more IDS principles; (iii) evaluation, defined as examinations of the process or outcomes of implementing IDS principles using formal qualitative or quantitative evaluation methods; or (iv) opinion, defined as proposals, comments or discussions of IDS principles. To include all papers discussing their emerging field, no assessment of quality assessment was made, and all papers were included. This analysis was replicated by a blinded coder (Author Three), there were no instances of discordance.

Second, the frequency with which studies cited any of the eight IDS principles was quantified. As shown in Table 1 , the eight synthesised IDS principles are: (i) ownership -the explicit ownership of data by First Peoples and/or organisations; (ii) control-where Indigenous peoples lead, hold power and are in control; Cultural values, principles, approaches, and methods prevail. It does not exclude the involvement of Others, but only as far as usefulness. Involvement of Others is by invitation only.; (iii) access-Indigenous people are able to find and obtain disaggregated and relevant data about themselves as individuals, community and cohorts levels.; (iv) custodianship-Refers to the concept of holding and stewarding data in its raw form, as well as the narrative. Custodianship holds significant responsibility for chartering the data along its intended path, with its intended spirit and within its intended place.; (v) accountability to Indigenous peoples-refers to the data, in and of itself, as well as the data users to answer to First Peoples, take responsibility for data use and outcomes, and provide explanation to Indigenous peoples. This may include the data structures, the use and nesting of data within the public domain and the continued use of data in research, policy and social domains.; (vi) amplify the voice of the community-refers to the requirement for data to represent upwards and outwards, the voice and experience of Community, the determined needs of Community and the contextualised analysis of data by Community.; vii) relevant and reciprocal-Relevant refers to useful data which supports Community to make good decisions and reciprocal refers to the data structures, metadata, and data itself providing a platform for giving back to Community. Data collected for Community good and Community need; not just for data's sake or Government determined stake.; and viii) sustainably self-determining-refers to the continued use and operationalisation of data, metadata, data structures, resources and interests which affect self-determination beyond their immediate intent. Third, the lead author identified the frequency with which each of these eight IDS principles were explicitly or implicitly cited in the 34 IDS-relevant studies. The author considered the discourse used to describe processes and/or experiences detailed within each paper, the above descriptions were applied to determine if the paper discussed the principles and their related applicability explicitly, then a judgement was determined as explicit. In the instance that papers reflected the descriptions noted in the latter without explicitly naming the principle, then the paper was determined to implicitly discuss the principle. This analysis was replicated by a blinded coder (Author Four) to test the reliability with which the IDS principles were identified in each study and classified as implicit or explicit. The rate of agreement between coders was 80% for explicitly cited, and 53% for implicitly cited, IDS principles. Disagreements were resolved by discussion between the two coders, resulting in an agreed final estimate for the frequency with which the IDS principles were cited.

The funding source had no role in the design of the study, execution of research, analyses, interpretation of data, or decision to submit results.

The key characteristics of the 34 studies identified for analysis are summarised in Table 2 .

The prevalence of IDS discourse in Australia. The number of IDS publications is increasing over time: eight times the number of IDS studies (n = 30) were published in the most recent ten years of this review period (January 2011 to December 2021) compared to the previous ten years (January 2000 to December 2010).

Study type, aims, methods and key results. Studies were either descriptive (n = 20 studies, 59%) or opinion pieces (n = 14, 41% studies). Their aims articulate best practice techniques for Indigenous research in relation to a range of IDS issues, including data collection and analysis, data interpretation, relationship building, confidentiality, informed consent, community participation and cross-cultural considerations. The methods in all studies were appropriate for the study aims: all qualitative studies used standard methodological techniques, such as semi-structured interviews 25 and analysis of case studies, 26, 27 or described processes, such as the development of guidelines for the management of Aboriginal health information. 28 Seven papers explored methods in the context of Indigenous-led research 26,3 : although results were specific to each study, the methods used in both studies focused on multiple aspect of IDS, including the collection, utilisation, interpretation, appropriate storage and effective governance of Indigenous data.

Frequency with which IDS principles are explicitly or implicitly cited. Table 2 also identifies whether studies made explicit or implicit reference to IDS principles and specifies the IDS principles that each study referenced. The frequency with which IDS principles are explicitly or implicitly cited is summarised in Table 3 , which shows three broad groups: relatively frequent citations, defined as at least 80% citation rate (control, accountable to Aboriginal and Torres Stait Islander peoples and, sustainably self-determining); relatively moderate citations, defined as 60−79% citation rate (ownership, access, custodianship and amplifying community voice and relevant and, reciprocal); and relatively infrequent citations, defined as 59−0% citation rate (nil). Table 3 also identifies that for all the IDS principles, the number of explicit citations was easily greater than the number of implicit citations. The variance between explicit and implicit citations was greatest for principles with relatively moderate citations.

55% percent (n = 152) of explicit citations of IDS principles are provided by five authors (Walter, Prehn, Lovett, Maher and Kukutai) who are leaders within the current movement toward IDS and IDG. The remainder of citations are within academic publication (as opposed to grey literature); this suggests that the movement of IDS and IDG from expert theoretical notion to practical community or place based implementation may need to be Face-to-face, semi-structured interviews were conducted with 35 health professionals from 2 urban and 1 regional ACCHS in New South Wales (NSW). Expository opinion piece (a balanced analysis of issues).

A set of principles is required to govern Indigenous data processes and practices to protect ownership and control over the sort of data that are collected and the use of those data. Data Sovereignty Interest Group A primary intent of international agreements is to provide a visible, collective approach to progressing IDS / IDG internationally, such as stipulating the appropriate IDS principles that should apply in any country

The 8 globally relevant IDS principles synthesised in this review from current literature (summarised in Table 1) Table 4 : A proposed framework to assist countries to develop Indigenous Data Sovereignty (IDS) agreements and processes that are both standardised internationally and tailored to their circumstances, with examples of its potential application in Australia from studies identified in this literature review.

supported. To that end, the authors have provided a potential conceptual framework to support Indigenous peoples and communities to interrogate and define IDS for themselves and consider how each principle should be enacted within their context. This is a conceptual framework for researching, evaluating, and designing Indigenous programs, initiatives, and organisations. The eight principles adopted within this literature review have been applied to the proposed framework. Given that the MnW principles for Australian IDS have been developed and this is where the included studies arise from, it is important to note that the IDS principles defined by MnW continue to be recognised and adhered to within the proposed framework as they have been incorporated into the eight above mentioned synthesised principles. Based on the first author's expertise in Indigenous place-based practice, a decision was made to apply the eight principles synthesised in this literature review to the proposed framework as their nuance will likely provide clearer scope during the design and/or evaluation process conducted by Indigenous peoples and communities.

A conceptual framework for operationalising IDS. Table 4 presents a potential framework for operationalising the IDS principles, comprising four core components: (i) international agreements; (ii) national or jurisdictional agreements, (iii) place-based agreements, and (iv) agreements for the individuals who may choose to contribute their data. The central idea of this framework is to create a standardised approach to operationalising IDS at any level.

Enacting and standardising IDS globally (component one). 30 primarily focused on characteristics of data that will facilitate increased data sharing among entities while ignoring power differentials and historical contexts. The emphasis on greater data sharing alone creates a tension for Indigenous Peoples who are also asserting greater control over the application and use of Indigenous data and Indigenous Knowledge for collective benefit. This includes the right to create value from Indigenous data in ways that are grounded in Indigenous worldviews and realise opportunities within the knowledge economy. The CARE principles complement the FAIR principles encouraging open and other data movements to consider both people and purpose in their advocacy and pursuits.

Enacting IDS nationally (component two). The suggested framework acknowledges the role and principles determined by the peak IDS body in Australia, MnW. The MnW Indigenous Data Sovereignty Collective was formed in early 2017 in order to develop Indigenous data sovereignty principles and to identify Indigenous strategic data assets. The intent of MnW is to empower Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders to engage in Indigenous Data Sovereignty and to advocate for rights (informed by the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous People (UNDRIP)) using data to inform development.

The framework suggests that as the peak IDS body in Australia, MnW may also work with governments and policy makers to develop and implement relevant and effective Indigenous Data Sovereignty and Governance (IDS/G) policies and legislation, and clearly articulate and support the relationships between government and IDS/G agencies. The peak body may also develop standardised data collection tools, frameworks and warehouses; and lead the approach to determining which data about Indigenous people are held in national or jurisdictional data collections (e.g. population census data), and contribute to the collection, analysis and sense making of those data.

The peak should also provide leadership and advisory to place-based IDS/IDG efforts as requested.

Enacting place-based IDS (component three). The framework provides core components/principles for place-based communities, organisations and services to define each principle, and co-design an appropriate approach to implementation which adheres to appropriate protocol and cultural practice. Some examples of evidence within this literature review are provided.

Place-based efforts should be informed by Aboriginal and Torres Strait individuals, advocates and advisors who can support the process of co-design and/or co-creation.

Enacting individual IDS (component four). The framework includes individual level agreements which may be made implicitly or explicitly. This is an important consideration for place-based efforts; and for state and national institutions who should be considering the way individual IDS can be upheld and respected.

Overall, this framework provides the flexibility for different countries and communities/services to give effect to the internationally agreed IDS/G principles in different ways, depending on their unique circumstances. Finally, key studies identified in this systematic review have been mapped onto Table 4 to illustrate how existing IDS knowledge can be applied to this framework, both to highlight how the tailored components of the framework are being operationalised (e.g. the Lovett papers, and the Griffiths and Smith paper for core component two; and the Taylor paper for core component three) and to identify key knowledge gaps in terms of applying Individual level IDS.

Global interest in the need to meaningfully protect IDS is growing. The first attempt to define the core components of IDS, Canada's OCAP principles published in 2004, 17 were augmented by New Zealand's Aotearoa-Te Mana Raraunga principles in 2016 31 and Australia's MnW principles in 2018. 21 An international workshop in 2017 generated an additional IDS principle by consensus and the US is currently formulating its own IDS principles. Findings from this systematic review are highly consistent with this growth in global interest and the establishment of Indigenous IDS networks in Canada, New Zealand, Australia and internationally: the number of IDS publications dramatically increased in the ten years to 2020 (74% of papers were published in the period 2011−2020, relative to the period 2000 −2010), and IDS principles are cited explicitly more frequently than implicitly (they were explicitly cited eighty percent more frequently than implicitly cited).

Given this growth in interest in IDS, this review presents a timely synthesis of the existing IDS academic literature. It is understood by the authors that the groundwork in developing IDS principles in multiple countries has come primarily from Indigenous thought leaders, and a key motivation for this systematic review was to capture and synthesise their pioneering work. Specifically, this review has identified three key areas for further development.

First, there is not yet international consensus on a standardised set of core IDS principles. Although this study used 8 principles, these were a synthesis of principles identified in different countries rather than a set of principles generated through expert consensus. Establishing an agreed set of international IDS principles would represent a highly visible and collective statement from Indigenous people about the core components of their data rights. Within this review, congruence of principle review between Aboriginal lead author and non-Aboriginal reviewer (Author Three) was high for explicitly cited principles, and low for implicitly cited principles. This suggests that there would be value in developing an Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander quality framework for IDS&G. Future research should undertake an assessment of study quality, methodology and bias.

Second, the full range of IDS principles need to be utilised more consistently during design, planning and evaluation of Indigenous organisations, programs, and initiatives. There is currently a lack of consistency in the way Indigenous concepts of IDS and IDG are expressed and determined to be operationalised at the community and organisational level. By supporting contextualisation and anchoring to a national movement for IDS&G, the proposed framework provides an opportunity for groundswell and community-based learning to be elevated to National leadership for influence and chartering of an agreed set of international principles. This review shows that citation rates of different IDS principles is currently uneven, ranging from control, Accountable to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples and Sustainably self-determining being the most frequently cited (29−31 times) to access and amplifying the voice of Community less frequently cites (23 times each). This lack of consistency suggests that operationalisation is complex and requires support to nuance the concepts and contextualise to diverse communities. The findings in this systematic review also vary from anecdotal experiences of the authors and other professionals whom have experienced significant challenges in accessing data and data amplifying the voice of Community, this may suggest a number of factors such as published literature premising research which has had accessible data, published literature may not be reflective of Community voice or the experience of inadequate data access and amplification of Community voice reflecting the status quo and as such, is not commonly challenged within published literature Whilst least stated, these principles are critical to the realisation of IDS as access to relevant data that amplifies the voice of Community is required in order to make governing decisions that benefit Indigenous peoples. The proposed framework also seeks to address this need and provide a rigorous structure for addressing the failures of Government and other agencies to genuinely recognise IDS&G, and repatriate statistical artefacts for decolonising and reconstruction within an Indigenous data ecosystem. Furthermore, the proposed framework may support Indigenous leaders across all levels of decision making to make full use of available datasets to bring out self-determined improvements in matters described within the data. 10 Third, there is currently no agreed mechanism to guide the operationalisation of IDS principles into practice to ensure that they are pragmatically, as well as intellectually, meaningful. Previous research on the conduct of Australian research according to national key principles for Indigenous research (e.g., respect, reciprocity and others) indicates that reporting around use of these principles is lacking, but that research conducted using the principles had better outcomes, highlighting the need for clear guidance to support implementation of principles into practice. 32−34 Additionally, research indicates that uptake of Indigenous principles into research practices is an enabler to research implementation, highlighting how such a framework may benefit practice and research outcomes. 32−34 A recent publication considering the intersection of IDS and the Australian Government's Closing the Gap policy, for example, has highlighted the need for applying a standardised approach for implementing and embedding IDS principles. 27 Given achieving consensus on IDS principles alone is unlikely to be sufficient to ensure their routine uptake into practice and policy, a framework for the operationalisation of IDS principles within Government agencies could be co-created by Indigenous peoples, Indigenous Community Controlled Organisations, IDS experts and Government departmental stakeholders. Such a commitment to cocreating the operationalisation of IDS&G within Government department policy would provide a starting point for tackling many complex challenges pertaining to Government datasets, some of those being Indigenous data being a subset of broader administrative data rather than a sovereign Indigenous dataset, Government agencies refusing to repatriate datasets for decolonising and governing purposes, the primacy of datapoints within decision making which are not reflective of Indigenous worldviews, and the abdication of responsibilities without suitably resourcing an Indigenous data ecosystem. Figure 2 and Table 4 provide an example of how an IDS framework might be constructed and informed by the existing IDS literature.

The detail in Table 4 shows how the framework could be both standardised (the four core components in column one and the specific IDS principles for core components three and four) and able to be tailored to the needs and specific circumstances of different countries, Indigenous communities, and Indigenous service providers (the examples of the different applications of the IDS principles). This concept of achieving both standardisation and tailoring to specific circumstances has been successfully applied to defining treatment programs and organisational-level data collection processes. 35, 36 Once developed, IDS experts could advocate for the global uptake of this IDS implementation framework.

The key limitation of this review is that the application of IDS principles into the proposed framework is based only on Australian IDS published papers. This decision was made to ensure the in-depth analysis of studies was limited to a number that was feasible for demonstrating how a set of internationally agreed IDS principles could be operationalised in the unique legislative and policy circumstances of a particular country. Nevertheless, it is unlikely that the Australian IDS studies introduced a bias toward IDS principles. The six Australian-specific IDS principles identified in Table 1 were spread evenly across the three categories of citation with the frequency shown in Table 2 . Three were cited relatively frequently (control, accountability and sustainably self-determining); three were cited moderately frequently (amplifying community voice, access, and relevant/reciprocal). Table 4 demonstrates that the Australian-specific literature can be integrated into the proposed IDS international framework, and that this analysis could be replicated for other countries.

In addition to the focus on Australian IDS studies, it may be that the meaning of, or implications for, implicitly cited IDS principles are different to those of the explicitly cited IDS principles (the aim of identifying implicit mentions of IDS principles was to capture the intent of researchers who may not have explicitly identified an IDS principle). For example, cultural intellectual property can be considered within an IDS context. Nevertheless, excluding the IDS principles identified as implicitly cited would be highly unlikely to change the practical interpretation of the results given there were relatively few of them identified (there were eight times as many explicit citations [n = 76] as implicit citations [n = 35] and the re-classification of studies by a blinded coder provides reassurance in the likely accuracy of the lower proportion of implicitly cited IDS principles.

Data and knowledge systems are integral to the way of life for Indigenous Peoples, and they are concurrently walking in multiple data worlds: one being a Traditional space which intuitively upholds the sovereignty of Indigenous data; and the other being the western approach which has too often sought to exploit, rather than respect the sovereignty of, Indigenous data. Establishing agreement on the core principles of IDS and clear processes for their operationalisation is critical to resolving this polarity and achieving Indigenous people's IDS rights, primarily through self-determination, as outlined in UNDRIP. 37 Although this review has identified Australian examples of IDS being practiced, such as community-based organisations or community members intuitively treating data in a way that honours and upholds the rights of Indigenous peoples (e.g. 26 ) , there needs to be a systematic approach to ensuring IDS is observed routinely and across all levels of data collection and utilisation: international; national; state and local communities and services. This systematic review has identified the increasing interest in IDS. Improvements in IDS are more likely to be achieved quickly if an agreed set of global IDS principles can be identified and a framework established for their operationalisation within the different circumstances of different countries and local communities or services. The eight IDS principles used in this review were synthesised from existing IDS principles derived from different countries [17] [18] [19] 21 and could form a starting point for an internationally agreed set of IDS principles. The authors directly recommend immediate implementation and contextualisation of the eight principles in Australia to support a groundswell movement toward IDS. To move IDS from academia into action, the principles must lend themselves to being self-determined at all levels of Indigenous governance, including the individual's rights. For tangible realisation across all levels of implementation, the principles provide a starting point for diverse Indigenous data governance in Australia to contextualise and self-determine the operationalisation of principles in practice. The principles used in this review continue to anchor back to the National principles set by MnW 19,21 which ensures national standardisation whilst upholding and acknowledging the diversity of Indigenous peoples in Australia. Strong consideration should be made by Indigenous Community Controlled Organisations to support a groundswell contextualisation of these principles. State and local Government agencies should resource and support a groundswell effort also, leading into Indigenous-led codesign of policy which upholds the groundswell selfdetermined principles. At a national level, the principles and leadership of MnW 19, 21 should be adopted, with diverse state, local, and individual conceptualisations of IDS operationalisation being supported and upheld. The framework presented in Table 4 may be helpful in demonstrating how these global IDS principles might be efficiently operationalised, and the application of Australian IDS studies to this framework demonstrates the feasibility of this approach.

an Advisor to the National Indigenous Australians Agency (NIAA). All other authors confirm that this article has no conflicts of interest.

Systematic Reviews of Health Promotion and Public Health Interventions. Victoria: The Cochrane Collaboration, Victorian Health Promotion Foundation

Indigenous data sovereignty: our data, our priorities, our way

Indigenous data, indigenous methodologies and indigenous data sovereignty

Indigenous data sovereignty

Indigenous peoples' data during COVID-19: from external to internal

Indigenous data sovereignty: implications for data journalism. towards a critical data practice

Indigenous data sovereignty in the era of big data and open data

Blaks and stats in aboriginal Victoria: census resistance and participation

Indigenous and tribal peoples data governance in health research: a systematic review

Australian aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander health information: progress, pitfalls, and prospects

The intersection of indigenous data sovereignty and closing the gap policy in Australia

Global indigenous and tribal peoples data governance in health research: a systematic review

We have "gifted" enough: indigenous genomic data sovereignty in precision medicine

Indigenous data sovereignty, governance and the link to Indigenous policy

Who is analysing what? The opportunities, risks and implications of using predictive risk modelling with Indigenous Australians in child protection: a scoping review

Centre for Aboriginal Economic Policy Research College of Arts and Social Sciences The Australian National University, Canberra research monograph nO

Ownership, control, access, and possession (OCAP) or self-determination applied to research: a critical analysis of contemporary first nations research and some options for first nations communities

Te mana raraunga-maori data sovereignty network charter

Maiam nayri Wingara atAIGI. Indigenous data sovereignty summit and indigenous data sovereignty communique

Indigenous Data Sovereignty Symposium: The Importance of Data Sovereignty for Communities

Maiam nayri Wingara Indigenous Data Sovereignty Communique: Indigenous Data Sovereignty Summit 20/06

A systematic review of work-place interventions for alcohol-related problems

A systematic and methodological review of interventions for young people experiencing alcohol-related harm

The quality and effectiveness of interventions that target multiple risk factors among young people: a systematic review

Building better research partnerships by understanding how aboriginal health communities perceive and use data: a semistructured interview study

Statistics for community governance: the yawuru indigenous population survey, Western Australia

Indigenous Data Sovereignty and Policy

Collecting and using aboriginal health information in New South Wales

The CARE principles for indigenous data governance

The FAIR guiding principles for scientific data management and stewardship

Data Sovereignty For Indigenous peoples: Current Practice and Future Needs

The conduct of Australian indigenous primary health care research focusing on social and emotional wellbeing: a systematic review

Conducting high-quality, culturally-appropriate primary healthcare research with aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples. (Doctoral dissertation)

Healing together: Identifying the Value of Partnerships Between Rural Aboriginal communities, Services and Researchers to codesign, Implement and Evaluate Programs to Reduce Drug and Alcohol Harms

Shakeshaft B. The feasibility of embedding data collection into the routine service delivery of a multi-component program for high-risk young people

The development of a healing model of care for an Indigenous drug and alcohol residential rehabilitation service: a community-based participatory research approach

United Nations declaration on the rights of indigenous peoples): human, civil, and indigenous rights

Good Data Practices for Indigenous Data Sovereignty and Governance. Good Data Amsterdam: Institute of Network Cultures

Measuring health disparities in Australia: using data to drive health promotion solutions

Study protocol: our cultures count, the Mayi Kuwayu Study, a national longitudinal study of aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander wellbeing

Data sovereignty for the yawuru in Western Australia. InIndigenous data sovereignty: Toward an agenda

Ethics and research: dilemmas raised in managing research collections of aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander materials

Indigenous data sovereignty and policy

Consultation, rapport, and collaboration: essential preliminary stages in research with urban aboriginal groups

Researching ourselves back to life': new ways of conducting aboriginal alcohol research

The authors confirm that the data supporting the findings of this study are available within the article or its supplementary materials. The dataset that supports the coding of literature reviewed for this study is available on request from the corresponding author, S.T.

S.T. conceived the presented idea. A.S. and K.G. supported the development of the methodology for analysis and interpretation of results. S.F. conducted the blind review of findings, including critical interpretation of results. All authors commented on the manuscript. S.T. accessed and was responsible for raw data associated with the study and took the decision to submit the manuscript for publication.