Rangahau
What the research shows
57 papers published by members of Hei Āhuru Mōwai, read and grouped into themes. This page sets out what each summary was built from, and what the collection does not reach.
How to read this page
Who wrote the summaries
Every summary here was written for this website by Redux, the team building it, from the paper itself. They are not the authors’ abstracts and they are not the authors’ words. Each paper is linked, so any summary can be checked against it.
Hei Āhuru Mōwai has not yet reviewed this page or the summaries on it.
What was actually read
37 of these summaries were written from the whole paper. 3 were written from part of one, where only some sections could be reached. 17 – 30% of the collection – were written from the abstract alone.
Where the assessment records a reason it differs from paper to paper: a paywall or a sign-in wall, a publisher page that refused an automated request, a file that could not be fetched. Some record no reason at all. Each paper below carries a badge saying how much of it was read, and the route taken to it is printed with the summary in the assessment’s own words.
A summary built from an abstract, or from part of a paper, deserves less weight than one built from the whole of it. Nothing on this page pretends otherwise.
Not all of it has results
4 of these are registered protocols: the design of a study, published before it has findings. A further 13 are viewpoints, commentaries, editorials, position letters or narrative reviews, which argue a case or draw together other people’s work rather than report a new dataset. Both kinds are worth reading and neither is evidence of an outcome.
The method line on each entry says which kind of document it is.
How the collection was gathered
These are papers Hei Āhuru Mōwai holds, gathered because its members wrote them. No systematic search was run, and no inclusion criteria were applied beyond that.
A subject missing from this page says nothing about the literature. It says this collection does not hold a paper on it.
6 of these papers are not cancer studies
This is the organisation’s own list of what its members have published, so what is on it is settled by who wrote a paper rather than by what the paper is about. These 6 are named here rather than dropped, each with the assessment’s own words on where it sits.
4 are about the system cancer care runs through
Each is about the system cancer care runs through rather than about a cancer. The assessment records each as not cancer-specific rather than as unrelated, and says what it bears on. 3 of them also sit under a theme below.
- What we do matters: Supporting anti-racism and decolonisation of public health teaching and practice through the development of Māori public health competenciesFrom the assessment: It is a workforce-training resource rather than a cancer-outcomes study, of most use to Hei Āhuru Mōwai if it is assessing or building training for people working with Māori across the cancer system, not only clinicians.
- Mortality outcomes and inequities experienced by rural Māori in Aotearoa New ZealandFrom the assessment: This paper is not cancer-specific - it covers all-cause and amenable mortality generally (amenable mortality means deaths that good healthcare could plausibly have prevented, a category that includes but is not limited to some cancers).
- Disparities in post-operative mortality between Māori and non-Indigenous ethnic groups in New ZealandFrom the assessment: This covers surgery generally, not cancer surgery specifically.
- Postoperative mortality in New Zealand following general anaesthetic: demographic patterns and temporal trendsFrom the assessment: This is not a cancer-specific paper, but cancer surgery happens under general anaesthetic, so a gap of this size in the wider surgical system is relevant background for anyone looking at Māori cancer treatment outcomes.
2 the assessment says are not about cancer
Each of these is here because a member of the organisation wrote it. What the assessment says about each, it says in the words below, on that paper’s own terms.
- Tū Kaha: He mōhio ki ngā Māori o te kōmaoa waewae (Stand Strong: A qualitative study of Māori with venous leg ulcers in Aotearoa New Zealand)From the assessment: This paper is not about cancer – it concerns venous leg ulcers, a vascular skin condition.
- Te Pepe Ao Uri Whāriki. The development of pūrākau analysis frameworkFrom the assessment: This paper is not about cancer.
The shape of the collection
| Subject | Papers |
|---|---|
| National figures on incidence, stage and survival | 7 |
| Lung cancer | 8 |
| Screening participation and design | 9 |
| Access to surgery and treatment | 10 |
| Time to diagnosis, and the route people take to it | 5 |
| Palliative and end-of-life care | 3 |
| Cancer policy and system design | 9 |
| Data, research governance and workforce | 8 |
| Prevention and co-occurring conditions | 5 |
| Services through COVID-19 | 3 |
| Subject | Papers |
|---|---|
| System and policy | 27 |
| Treatment | 21 |
| Screening | 16 |
| Diagnosis | 13 |
| Data | 12 |
| Prevention | 6 |
| Workforce | 4 |
| Palliative care | 3 |
| Living after treatment | 1 |
The dated papers run from 2016 to 2024. 9 carry no publication year in the assessment, so no date is shown for them rather than a guessed one.
The themes
10 groupings, made for this website so the collection can be read. They are a finding aid, and are not Hei Āhuru Mōwai’s statement of its research priorities.
8 papers in this theme
Show every themeData, research governance and workforce
Ethnicity data quality, the governance of genomic and biobank research with Māori, and the training and research capacity of the people the cancer system runs on.
8 papers, 5 of them summarised from less than the whole paper.
What we do matters: Supporting anti-racism and decolonisation of public health teaching and practice through the development of Māori public health competencies (opens in a new tab)
Summarised from the abstractAustralian and New Zealand Journal of Public Health· 2024· doi:10.1016/j.anzjph.2024.100132
Veenstra N, Kewene F, Morgaine K, Crengle S
kaupapa Māori competency-development study, four stages including consultation hui and respondent validation; participant/hui numbers not stated in the abstract
Our summary of what it found
This is not a clinical outcomes study but an account of developing a set of Māori public health competencies through a four-stage kaupapa Māori process, including consultation hui and respondent validation. Key themes from participants were the importance of te reo Māori proficiency, strength-based approaches, self-determination, and individual practitioner responsibility for addressing structural racism, with reflective practice identified as a competency running across all the others. Participants also wanted planetary health and political context added as social determinants of health. The resulting competency document has been published under a Creative Commons licence for use in universities and workplaces.
Why it matters: It is a workforce-training resource rather than a cancer-outcomes study, of most use to Hei Āhuru Mōwai if it is assessing or building training for people working with Māori across the cancer system, not only clinicians.
Limits: Seen only as an abstract, via Europe PMC and PubMed. Europe PMC lists it as subscription-required with no open-access copy, and none was found on the University of Otago repository either. The abstract does not give hui or participant numbers, so none are reported here.
Read as: abstract only – confirmed subscription-required at publisher via Europe PMC; no open-access copy found on Europe PMC, PubMed Central or the University of Otago OUR Archive
Written for this website from the paper, not the authors’ abstract.
Challenging structural racism through the development of equity-driven core Māori hauora ā iwi/public health competencies for university hauora ā iwi/public health teaching (opens in a new tab)
Summarised from the abstractHigher Education Research & Development· 2023· doi:10.1080/07294360.2023.2246404
Kewene F, Morgaine K, Colhoun S, Crengle S
development paper, kaupapa Māori four-stage process (literature scoping, drafting, consultation hui, respondent validation); not a quantitative study
Our summary of what it found
The paper reports how a set of core Māori hauora ā iwi/public health competencies was developed for use in university teaching, built through a kaupapa Māori process of literature review, drafting and consultation hui, intended to give both Māori and non-Māori academics a shared framework for anti-racist, equity-focused curricula. It does not report cancer-specific data; its subject is public health workforce education generally.
Why it matters: It bears on the pipeline of people trained to work in hauora ā iwi/public health, including cancer-related roles, rather than on cancer outcomes directly.
Limits: I read the abstract only, via Crossref and Semantic Scholar metadata; the Taylor & Francis publisher page returned a 403 and I found no PubMed, PMC, Europe PMC, or institutional-repository copy of the full text.
Read as: abstract, read via Semantic Scholar/Crossref metadata; publisher page returned 403; no PMC, Europe PMC, PubMed indexing, or repository copy found
Written for this website from the paper, not the authors’ abstract.
Creating an environment to inform, build, and sustain a Māori health research workforce (opens in a new tab)
Summarised from the whole paperJournal of the Royal Society of New Zealand· 2023· doi:10.1080/03036758.2023.2235303
Nikki M. Barrett, Reigna Morgan, Jade Tamatea, Amy Jones, Polly Atatoa Carr, Ross Lawrenson, Nina Scott
Kaupapa Māori mixed-methods study: survey of Māori staff at Waikato District Health Board (168 of 842 invited, a 17% response rate) plus 10 follow-up interviews
Our summary of what it found
A survey of Māori staff at Waikato District Health Board found only 14% had ever taken part in research, though 40% of those with no prior involvement wanted to, and three-quarters wanted training in Māori health research skills. Ten follow-up interviews traced the gap to a lack of information about how to start a project, unclear institutional processes, and no dedicated time or funding. Staff framed research as mattering because it served whānau and community, not career advancement. The authors call for a named Māori research support team, training, and clearer internal pathways.
Why it matters: It sets out, with numbers from one DHB, the concrete barriers - process, time, funding - that stand between Māori health staff and the research capacity a cancer-equity system depends on.
Limits: Self-selected sample with a 17% response rate at a single DHB; cross-sectional and not specific to cancer research. I read the full text via the PMC open-access copy.
Read as: full text (PMC open-access copy)
Written for this website from the paper, not the authors’ abstract.
Mapping a route to Indigenous engagement in cancer genomic research (opens in a new tab)
Summarised from the abstract· 2019
Personal View / roadmap paper, not an empirical study with results
Our summary of what it found
This Personal View sets out a roadmap for properly involving Māori in cancer genomic research, built around a neuroendocrine tumour genomics research programme in Aotearoa New Zealand. It proposes ongoing dialogue, Māori leadership in the research, reciprocity, agreed kawa and tikanga, and honest monitoring of what the roadmap does and does not achieve. The authors ask cancer researchers elsewhere to build their own locally appropriate roadmaps rather than adopt this one directly.
Why it matters: It is a documented, named example of what Māori involvement in a cancer genomics research programme has looked like, which other genomic cancer studies could be measured against.
Limits: I read the abstract, not the full text. It is a position and process paper rather than a study reporting outcomes, so there are no measured results to report beyond the roadmap itself.
Read as: abstract (verbatim, via a Europe PMC record matched to the article's DOI; the Lancet Oncology page itself returned a 403 error when I tried to fetch it directly)
Written for this website from the paper, not the authors’ abstract.
New Zealand's revised Ethnicity Data Protocols must not become a shelved document: a challenge from Hei Āhuru Mōwai (opens in a new tab)
Summarised from the whole paperNew Zealand Medical Journal· 2018
Hei Āhuru Mōwai – National Māori Cancer Leadership Group (corresponding author Jason K Gurney; co-authors Nina Scott, Gary Thompson, Stephanie Turner, Jo Anson, Melissa Cragg, Joanne Doherty, Madeleine Wall, George Laking, Terina Moke, Rawiri Blundell, Pania Coote)
opinion/position letter, not empirical research
Our summary of what it found
Published under Hei Āhuru Mōwai's own name, the letter sets out what changed when the Ministry of Health revised its Ethnicity Data Protocols in September 2017: ethnicity must be self-identified rather than inferred, there is to be no forced single 'principal' ethnicity, at least six affiliations must be stored, an 'Other' option sits alongside the 2013 Census categories, classification must reach the most detailed (Level 4) standard, and ethnicity data must be re-collected at least every three years. It states that Māori are 20% more likely than non-Māori to get cancer but 80% more likely to die of it, citing this as the reason good ethnicity data matters for measuring and closing cancer inequities. It closes with two challenges: to the Ministry, to see the protocols actually implemented across DHBs rather than left on a shelf, and to the wider health sector, to commit to collecting ethnicity data accurately and often.
Why it matters: A citable primary source for Hei Āhuru Mōwai's own published advocacy on ethnicity-data quality, now correctly pointed at its live host rather than the dead nzma.org.nz domain or an inaccessible personal drive link.
Limits: An opinion/position letter with no new study data of its own — its statistics on Māori cancer incidence and mortality are drawn from two cited Ministry of Health/University of Otago reports (Robson et al 2010; Soeberg et al 2012), which this assessment has not separately verified.
Read as: full text (PDF served from nzmj.org.nz, the journal's current host — confirmed the old nzma.org.nz host is dead and that URL was never used). No DOI is assigned to this letter; none is shown on the publisher page or in the PDF.
Written for this website from the paper, not the authors’ abstract.
Te Mata Ira: Guidelines for Genomic Research with Māori (opens in a new tab)
Summarised from part of the paper· 2016
Guidelines document built from a 2012-2015 Health Research Council-funded project (grant 12/470) that gathered views from whānau, hapū, iwi, Māori health workers, Māori and non-Māori researchers, social and biomedical scientists, and biobank managers.
Our summary of what it found
This is a guidelines and framework document, not a study report. It builds on the earlier Te Ara Tika guidelines and sets out four ethical principles for genomic and biobank research with Māori: whakapapa, mana, tika and manaakitanga (the document's own glosses in parentheses: 'genealogy', 'power, control', 'right, correct', and 'to look after, care for'). It maps these onto three research stages -- Consultation, Research, Transformation -- and describes a cultural foundation covering whakapapa, taonga (the document glosses this as 'something precious or significant'), tapu and tākoha as they apply to human tissue, DNA and genomic data. A key-themes table records separate concerns raised by Māori generally (protection of rights and interests, control over samples and data, expectations of consultation and consent) and by iwi specifically (loss of control over tissue over time, expectation of iwi governance over projects, and the importance of ongoing communication about progress and outcomes). Input came from several named iwi: Ngāti Hine, Ngāti Porou, Ngāti Rakaipaaka, Southern Runaka o Ngāi Tahu, and Ngāti Whātua ki Ōrākei.
Why it matters: For a research overview on the Hei Āhuru Mōwai site, this is the standing framework for how genomic and biobank research involving Māori participants -- including any cancer genomics -- is expected to be governed and consented in Aotearoa, rather than a finding about cancer itself.
Limits: I read only the first fifth or so of the document. Sections 2 (full framework detail), 3 (guidance tables on engagement, methods and benefit-sharing) and 4 (incidental findings, data rights, data linkage) were not read, so this entry does not cover their content. The document itself states it should be read alongside the earlier Te Ara Tika guidelines, which I have not reviewed.
Read as: Full text, partial. The OneDrive link redirected to a Microsoft share page WebFetch could not render, so I located the same document via the publisher (University of Waikato) and read it directly: cover, contents, introduction, purpose, background, and the opening of Section 1 'Cultural Foundation' (roughly pages 1-9 of about 48). I did not read Sections 2-4 in full (framework detail, guidance tables, special ethical considerations) or the glossaries.
Written for this website from the paper, not the authors’ abstract.
Indigenous Cancer Research: Reflections on Roles and Responsibilities (opens in a new tab)
Summarised from the whole paper
commentary/viewpoint, not original research
Our summary of what it found
A reflective commentary on what non-Indigenous researchers owe Indigenous communities when doing cancer research. It argues most health researchers are non-Indigenous while most health research affects Indigenous peoples, and that research done without Indigenous governance, partnership and cultural safety can cause real harm. It sets out principles including shared decision-making, redistributing power to Indigenous researchers, and approaching the work with humility rather than as an outside expert. The authors state directly that the piece is a reflection, not a comprehensive best-practice guide.
Why it matters: It speaks to how HĀMō and any partner researchers structure a study relationship, rather than to any clinical or survival finding.
Limits: The authors state the piece does not attempt an in-depth analysis or a comprehensive best-practice summary; it is offered to prompt further discussion, not as settled guidance.
Read as: full text, via the PMC copy (PMC6998022)
Written for this website from the paper, not the authors’ abstract.
Stage at diagnosis for Māori cancer patients, disparities, similarities and data limitations (opens in a new tab)
Summarised from the abstract
retrospective registry analysis cross-checked against clinical audit data, 196,967 patients, 2007–2016
Our summary of what it found
An analysis of New Zealand Cancer Registry records for 196,967 patients diagnosed between 2007 and 2016, checked against separate clinical audit data for breast, colon, rectal, lung and stomach cancer. Māori patients were less likely to be diagnosed with localised disease for several cancers, most markedly prostate (odds ratio 0.50) and lung (odds ratio 0.53), though this did not hold for every cancer type. The registry also understated how many patients had no recorded stage: clinical audits found 38% of Māori lung cancer patients were unstaged, well above what the registry showed. A survival gap between Māori and non-Māori remained even after accounting for stage.
Why it matters: The registry undercounting missing stage data means Māori cancer outcomes cannot be fully monitored from that registry alone, which is a data problem sitting underneath the clinical one.
Limits: Based on the NZMJ abstract as fetched; full text was not read, so detail beyond the stated results and headline odds ratios is not confirmed here.
Read as: abstract, via the NZMJ journal page
Written for this website from the paper, not the authors’ abstract.
What this collection does not cover
Each of these is a statement about the papers on this page, and about nothing else. Research may well exist on all of them. It is not held here.
No evaluation of a cancer navigator or Māori cancer support service
Nothing in this collection tests whether a navigator service or a Māori cancer support service works, for whom, or at what cost.
Several papers here argue that support of that kind is needed. The scoping review of palliative care for Māori reports that whānau-led care works better where it is free of the assumptions built into mainstream services. The Hā Ora work on lung cancer names thin health-literacy support and services that do not accommodate whānau involvement among the barriers people described. The integrative review of health service responses to Indigenous people with cancer found better access where services built culturally appropriate care around the population they served, and flags how few such studies have been published at all.
What none of them does is evaluate a service. That is the largest hole in this collection, and it sits directly under the navigator network this site already points people to.
Cancers with no paper here
This collection does not cover:
- Melanoma and skin cancer
- Head and neck cancer
- Bladder and testicular cancer
A further 3 cancers appear in a single paper each.
Life after treatment
One paper in this collection is tagged as being about living after treatment. This collection does not cover late effects, or returning to work after treatment.
Whose voice is in it
The qualitative work here reports what researchers found across groups of participants. This page summarises those papers at the level of their own findings, and carries no individual account.
Elsewhere on this site
Published rangahau is the full bibliography of members’ work, filterable by subject, year and researcher. It lists more than the papers assessed here.
Rauemi holds the organisation’s own reports and papers, alongside resources published by other organisations and linked to them.
If you are looking for a particular piece of rangahau, email communications@heiahurumowai.org.nz.