Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41730756›Full record

ArticleJournal of foot and ankle research2026

Working Right Ways in Foot Health With and for First Nations Peoples: Research Method Guided and Governed by First Nations Ways of Knowing, Being, and Doing in Cross-Sectional Qualitative Study Design.

James Gerrard, Shirley Godwin Badimaya Yamatji, Kim Whiteley Wiradjuri, James Charles Kaurna, Sean Sadler, Vivienne Chuter

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of foot and ankle research, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

James GerrardDiscipline of Podiatry, School of Health Sciences, Western Sydney University, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.
Shirley Godwin Badimaya YamatjiLa Trobe University Rural Health School, Bendigo, Victoria, Australia.
Kim Whiteley WiradjuriRemote Area Health Corps, Canberra, New South Wales, Australia.
James Charles KaurnaFirst Peoples Health Unit, Griffith University, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9831-4205
Sean SadlerDiscipline of Podiatry, School of Health Sciences, Western Sydney University, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7546-5836
Vivienne ChuterDiscipline of Podiatry, School of Health Sciences, Western Sydney University, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4793-5340

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundUnderpinning ongoing colonisation of the lands now known as Australia, scientific racism in colonial research delivered flawed results by building Indigenous inferiority into methodology to produce dehumanising conclusions of First Nations Peoples. Scientific racism facilitated exclusion of First Nations Peoples from systems design and development; foregrounding ways exclusive and enforced colonial health systems cause First Nations health and wellbeing inequality. Inequities in foot health contribute to this inequality. This work describes and documents a process of First Nations-led authentic co-design for foot health research. This study represents ways and means to develop culturally responsive foot health research as judged by First Nations Peoples which will translate into improved and more responsive ways of delivering foot care.

methodsNon-Indigenous and First Nations Peoples sought authentic First Nations-led co-design process in foot health research methods, a governing First Nations Advisory Group, and broader First Nations governance and ethics approvals. Indigenous methodology, data sovereignty, and redistribution of power were imperative in ways of working. First Nations-led co-design developed culturally responsive semi-structured interviews to collect data. Talking with 10 registered health practitioners who work closely with lower limb and foot health represented the right mix of participants and enough data to convey a more complicated mosaic of multi-faceted stories. First Nations expertise informed analytic induction and the use of inductive reasoning and constant comparison to identify common and overarching themes, and to perform thematic analysis.

resultsAuthentic First Nations-led ways of working in cross-sectional qualitative study design are documented. Results of data analysis following these ways of working will be published subsequently.

conclusionThis work provides insights into working right ways in research which will underpin good foot health services with and for First Nations Peoples. The paper highlights ways of working that empowers First Nations Peoples in authentic co-design. First Nations-led foot health research changes ways of working to counter inequities in foot health caused and maintained by ongoing colonisation and systemic racism. This study provides qualified voiced lived experience which foot health researchers must listen to and receive learning and direction from.

Indexed as

Foot DiseasesHealth Services, IndigenousAustraliaColonialismCross-Sectional StudiesHumansQualitative ResearchRacismResearch Designco‐designcultural safetyFirst Nations Peoples (Australia)foot healthparticipatory action researchsystemic racism

Identifiers

PMID41730756
PMCPMC12929027

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.