ABSTRACT The objective of the author is to investigate the relationship between indigenous activity and caring for country

to promote good health and the health outcome of indigenous morbidity and mortality. The investigations were carried out from March to September 2005. Participants were recruited voluntarily in different levels of involvement (i.e. homelands, township residences, workplaces and public spaces) of Indigenous residents whose age ranged between 15 and 54 years old in an Arnhem Land community. The main outcome measures by the author were self-reported. These involved: (i) caring for country activity, (ii) health behaviour,(iii) body mass index (BMI), (iv) wrist circumference, (v) blood pressure, (vi) type 2 diabetes status, (vii) albumin to creatinine ratio (ACR), (viii) levels of glycated haemoblogin (HbAc) and high-density lipoprotein ( HDL) cholesterol, (ix) lipid ratio, (x) score on the five-item version of the Kessler Psychological Distress Scale (K5), and (xi) 5-year cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk. In the results for the outcome measures between the control for social population characteristics and health behaviours, two variable quantities worsen revealed a significant and substantial assocition between caring for country and health outcomes. There was an increase in the weighted total with caring for country score as there were more frequent physical activity, better diet, lower BMI, less abdominal obesity, lower systolic blood pressure, less diabetes, lower HbAc level, nonelevated ACR, higher HDL cholesterol level, lower K5 score and CVD risk. The findings suggested that investment in caring for country may be a means to foster sustainable economic development and gains for both ecological and indigenous peoples health. The author concluded that indigenous participation in caring for country activities associated closely with better health while the casual direction of caring for country and health outcomes required clear specifications. There are a few weaknesses of the article that was not attracting towards the audience. The first is the language concept of the article. The language text of the article was not interesting towards the audience, because it is read for doctor degree that is not the language of everyday English language. On the section on results, statistical result and study limitation are shown to a scientific concept of a science experiment. Table 1 Definition words on the Article. Word Disproportionate Epidemiological Definition Relatively too large or small etc. The study of the incidence and distribution of epidemic disease, and of their control and prevention. To reduce to a general form, class, or law. Statistics the difference between the value of a variable below which lie 25 per cent of the population, and that below which lie 75 per cent: a measure of the spread of the distribution

Generalizability (Generalize) Interquartile Range

Morbidity Mortality Multivariate Predominantly Sociodemographic

Sphygmomanometer

An abnormally gloomy or unhealthy state of mind State of being subject to death pertaining to any procedure involving two or more variables much greater in number or influence of, pertaining to, or characterized by a combination of sociological and demographic characteristics Instrument used by doctors for measuring a persons blood pressure.

The table show above indicates definition on the word found in the article. The audience will have problem understanding long word that the author expectation to have audience to understand the authors written work. Second is the presentation of the table result on table 3, 4 & 5, that shows crude measurement and reliant on self-report. Table 3 shows an overall view on the participation of indigenous cohort characteristics as shown many list of their Sociodemographic characteristic, Health behaviour, Caring for country and Clinical outcomes. In the table has calculation answer of each of the section with a percentage of participation. Table 4 and table 5 shows relevant information to the article that the author suggested indigenous adjustment to their sociodemographic factors, place of resident and health behaviour lead to a better health on clinical outcome. However, analysing the structure of the use of the table 4 & 5 can be misinterpreted and audience will have difficult to read. Most of these are not important to the audience, as the table shows a large amount of information that is irrelevant evidence that are not explain in depth to suggest on the authors objective.

Statistical analysis Study limitation

There are a few things that did not work for this article was the table of result. What did not work Table of result, do not understand their purpose of this Measures, calculation, reliable Study limitation

What is the authors stated purpose? Where and how is this stated?

Who is the intended audience? Is it a specialised or general audience? What is the main line of argument? What other arguments does the author use to support the main line of argument? What evidence does the author use to support the main line of argument? Is the evidence well-presented sufficient and convincing? Are there alternative points of view or line of argument? Where does the author stand in relation to other points of view on this topic? Does the text present or refuse opposing lines of argument and evidence? Conclusion Outline of the authors argument Structure of the overall article