Abstract
BACKGROUND: Globally, Pacific peoples face significant inequities across a range of health issues. While it is increasingly recognised that Pacific communities should be partners in the development of health interventions intended to benefit them, less is understood about the effectiveness or outcomes of these processes. This scoping review aimed to explore how health interventions co-designed by Pacific communities are defined, undertaken and the health outcomes that they achieve. METHODS: This review was guided by the Joanna Briggs Institute methodology for scoping reviews and the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews guidelines. Inclusion criteria were studies using participatory approaches with Pacific communities to develop health-related interventions and reported findings. Five electronic databases (Medline, Embase, Scopus, PsycINFO and CINAHL) were searched, along citation searching of reference lists and grey literature sources. Database results were imported into Covidence for independent eligibility screening by two reviewers. Critical appraisal and risk of bias were assessed for the final studies using the Joanna Briggs Institute checklists. RESULTS: A total of 6972 records were identified, with 21 final studies included after screening. Studies were conducted across nine different countries on a range of health issues, with diabetes prevention or management being the most common. Fifteen different terms outlining participatory methodologies were found across the 21 studies, including community-based participatory research, empowerment, participatory approaches, action research and co-design. Although definitions and descriptions of participatory processes were often lacking, in general, studies found that interventions reported positive impacts on health-related outcomes for Pacific people. CONCLUSIONS: This review highlighted the process behind participatory research designs with Pacific communities and how these can result in positive health outcomes over time. Future research and intervention development in this area will benefit from clearer definitions and explanations of processes, strong evaluation structures implemented from the outset and longer timeframes for observation.