Systematic review explores participatory research efforts to enhance food security in Indigenous communities, suggesting improved reporting for intellectual property protection.
Participatory research presents a promising way of working with Indigenous peoples, for whom food security is a priority, including in Canada, Australia, Aotearoa (New Zealand), and the United States of America. Other reviews have explored how food security policies and programs have been used to improve food security. This review aims to systematically examine the use of participatory research to improve food security by examining research practice and outcomes at the socio-ecological levels. A systematic search of six databases from 1974 to June 2025 was conducted. Research practice elements were assessed using The Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Quality Appraisal Tool, and other selected questions. Outcomes were categorised according to socio-ecological level and data analysed using narrative synthesis. Twenty-four studies from 36 articles were included, 12 studies from the United States of America, nine from Canada, and three from Australia. Most studies reported use of most research practice elements; all studies employed strengths-based approaches and Indigenous paradigms. However, most studies were unclear on the protection of ownership of intellectual and cultural property. Four studies reported outcomes at the policy level, all (24) studies at a community level and 11 at an organisational level. Thirteen articles reported outcomes across more than one level. Food security-related outcomes were broad, in line with community priorities. We encourage journals to strengthen requirements in reporting around the protection of intellectual and cultural property, and cultural and theoretical positioning, and we encourage translational research that documents and publishes policy-level actions.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Chappell et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: