Health Inequity in the Northern Territory, Australia

INTRODUCTION: Understanding health inequity is necessary for addressing the disparities in health outcomes in many populations, including the health gap between Indigenous and non-Indigenous Australians. This report investigates the links between Indigenous health outcomes and socioeconomic disadvantage in the Northern Territory of Australia (NT).METHODS: Data sources include deaths, public hospital admissions between 2005 and 2007, and Socio-Economic Indexes for Areas from the 2006 Census. Age-sex standardisation, standardised rate ratio, concentration index and Poisson regression model are used for statistical analysis.RESULTS: There was a strong inverse association between socioeconomic status (SES) and both mortality and morbidity rates. Mortality and morbidity rates in the low SES group were approximately twice those in the medium SES group, which were, in turn, 50% higher than those in the high SES group. The gradient was present for most disease categories for both deaths and hospital admissions. Residents in remote and very remote areas experienced higher mortality and hospital morbidity than non-remote areas. Approximately 25-30% of the NT Indigenous health disparity may be explained by socioeconomic disadvantage.CONCLUSIONS: Socioeconomic disadvantage is a shared common denominator for the main causes of deaths and principal diagnoses of hospitalisations for the NT population. Closing the gap in health outcomes between Indigenous and non-Indigenous populations will require improving the socioeconomic conditions of Indigenous Australians

Alcohol-attributable deaths among indigenous and non-indigenous Australians

Introduction: Alcohol abuse in Indigenous communities in Australia has been a devastating problem. The association between alcohol use and ill-health is well established but complex. The aim of this review was to assess and compare alcohol-attributable deaths and years of life lost among Indigenous Australians to the Australian population as a whole. Methods and materials: Standard burden of disease and injury methodology and population attributable fractions were applied to analyse death registration data from 2003 to 2006. Alcohol use prevalence was retrieved from the 2004/5 Australian National Health Surveys and the National Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Health Survey. The relative risk estimates were compiled from epidemiological reviews. Results: The results found that Indigenous Australians experienced 7% to 7.5% mortality burden resulting from alcohol use, and were over-represented in comparison with their population share (2.5%). At ages 15 to 74 years, the alcohol-attributable deaths and years of life lost rates among Indigenous Australians were over 2–3 times higher than in the average across all Australians. At ages 25 to 54, the alcohol-attributable mortality rates among Indigenous Australians were 4–6 times higher than the national average. Alcohol-attributable mortality risk was substantially (2–3 times) higher among males than females, regardless of ethnicity and age group.Discussion: This review provides new and more reliable national data on alcohol-attributable deaths and alcohol-attributable years of life lost, comparing Indigenous Australians with the general population. Significant mortality and morbidity among Indigenous Australians is associated with excess alcohol use, which generally occurs within a historical context and socioeconomic disadvantage. The failure to address poverty in Indigenous communities is likely to undermine gains that might otherwise occur through traditional prevention activities, such as alcohol restrictions. Conclusion: It was evident that the harmful use of alcohol contributed to the disproportionate mortality burden experienced by Indigenous Australians

Incidence and survival after acute myocardial infarction in indigenous and non-indigenous people in the Northern Territory, 1992-2004

Objective: To estimate the incidence and survival rates of acute myocardial infarction (AMI) for Northern Territory Indigenous and non-Indigenous populations.Design and participants: Retrospective cohort study for all new AMI cases recorded in hospital inpatient data or registered as an ischaemic heart disease (IHD) death between 1992 and 2004.Main outcome measures: Population-based incidence and survival rates by age, sex, Indigenous status, remoteness of residence and year of diagnosis.Results: Over the 13-year study period, the incidence of AMI increased 60% in the NT Indigenous population (incidence rate ratio [IRR], 1.04; 95% CI, 1.02–1.06), but decreased 20% in the non-Indigenous population (IRR, 0.98; 95% CI, 0.97–1.00). Over the same period, there was an improvement in all-cases survival (ie, survival with and without hospital admission) for the NT Indigenous population due to a reduction in deaths both pre-hospital and after hospital admission (death rates reduced by 56% and 50%, respectively). The non-Indigenous all-cases death rate was reduced by 29% as a consequence of improved survival after hospital admission; there was no significant change in pre-hospital survival in this population. Important factors that affected outcome in all people after AMI were sex (better survival for women), age (survival declined with increasing age), remoteness (worse outcomes for non-Indigenous residents of remote areas), year of diagnosis and Indigenous status (hazard ratio, 1.44; 95% CI, 1.21–1.70).Conclusions: Our results show that the increasing IHD mortality in the NT Indigenous population is a consequence of a rise in AMI incidence, while at the same time there has been some improvement in Indigenous AMI survival rates. The simultaneous decrease in IHD mortality in NT non-Indigenous people was a result of reduced AMI incidence and improved survival after AMI in those admitted to hospital. Our results inform population-specific strategies for a systemwide response to AMI management

Telehealth in remote Australia : a supplementary tool or an alternative model of care replacing face-to-face consultations?

Background: The COVID-19 pandemic increased the use of telehealth consultations by telephone and video around the world. While telehealth can improve access to primary health care, there are significant gaps in our understanding about how, when and to what extent telehealth should be used. This paper explores the perspectives of health care staff on the key elements relating to the effective use of telehealth for patients living in remote Australia. Methods: Between February 2020 and October 2021, interviews and discussion groups were conducted with 248 clinic staff from 20 different remote communities across northern Australia. Interview coding followed an inductive approach. Thematic analysis was used to group codes into common themes. Results: Reduced need to travel for telehealth consultations was perceived to benefit both health providers and patients. Telehealth functioned best when there was a pre-established relationship between the patient and the health care provider and with patients who had good knowledge of their personal health, spoke English and had access to and familiarity with digital technology. On the other hand, telehealth was thought to be resource intensive, increasing remote clinic staff workload as most patients needed clinic staff to facilitate the telehealth session and complete background administrative work to support the consultation and an interpreter for translation services. Clinic staff universally emphasised that telehealth is a useful supplementary tool, and not a stand-alone service model replacing face-to-face interactions. Conclusion: Telehealth has the potential to improve access to healthcare in remote areas if complemented with adequate face-to-face services. Careful workforce planning is required while introducing telehealth into clinics that already face high staff shortages. Digital infrastructure with reliable internet connections with sufficient speed and latency need to be available at affordable prices in remote communities to make full use of telehealth consultations. Training and employment of local Aboriginal staff as digital navigators could ensure a culturally safe clinical environment for telehealth consultations and promote the effective use of telehealth services among community members

On Application of the Empirical Bayes Shrinkage in Epidemiological Settings

This paper aims to provide direct and indirect evidence on setting up rules for applications of the empirical Bayes shrinkage (EBS), and offers cautionary remarks concerning its applicability. In epidemiology, there is still a lack of relevant criteria in the application of EBS. The bias of the shrinkage estimator is investigated in terms of the sums of errors, squared errors and absolute errors, for both total and individual groups. The study reveals that assessing the underlying exchangeability assumption is important for appropriate use of EBS. The performance of EBS is indicated by a ratio statistic f of the between-group and within-group mean variances. If there are significant differences between the sample means, EBS is likely to produce erratic and even misleading information

A multilevel analysis on the relationship between neighbourhood poverty and public hospital utilization: is the high Indigenous morbidity avoidable?

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>The estimated life expectancy at birth for Indigenous Australians is 10-11 years less than the general Australian population. The mean family income for Indigenous people is also significantly lower than for non-Indigenous people. In this paper we examine poverty or socioeconomic disadvantage as an explanation for the Indigenous health gap in hospital morbidity in Australia.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>We utilised a cross-sectional and ecological design using the Northern Territory public hospitalisation data from 1 July 2004 to 30 June 2008 and socio-economic indexes for areas (SEIFA) from the 2006 census. Multilevel logistic regression models were used to estimate odds ratios and confidence intervals. Both total and potentially avoidable hospitalisations were investigated.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>This study indicated that lifting SEIFA scores for family income and education/occupation by two quintile categories for low socio-economic Indigenous groups was sufficient to overcome the excess hospital utilisation among the Indigenous population compared with the non-Indigenous population. The results support a reframing of the Indigenous health gap as being a consequence of poverty and not simplistically of ethnicity.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>Socio-economic disadvantage is a likely explanation for a substantial proportion of the hospital morbidity gap between Indigenous and non-Indigenous populations. Efforts to improve Indigenous health outcomes should recognise poverty as an underlying determinant of the health gap.</p