Complex impact of remoteness on the incidence of myocardial infarction in Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal people in Western Australia

Objective: To determine the impact of remoteness on Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal myocardial infarction incidence rates in men and women of different ages. Design: Descriptive study. Setting: Western Australia. Participants: Incident cases of myocardial infarction in Western Australia from 2000–2004 identified from person-linked files of hospital and mortality records. Analysis was undertaken for Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal populations, separately and combined, by broad age group, sex and remoteness. Main outcome measure: Incidence of myocardial infarction. Results: In the combined analysis, age-standardised incidence was significantly higher for men in very remote areas (rate ratio 1.31: 95% confidence interval (CI), 1.19–1.45) and in women in both regional (rate ratio 1.12: 95% CI, 1.01–1.20) and very remote (rate ratio 2.05: 95% CI, 1.75–2.41) areas. Aboriginal rates were substantially higher than non-Aboriginal rates in all substrata. Compared with metropolitan people, regional Aboriginal men and very remote non-Aboriginal men aged 25–54 years had significantly higher incidence rates. For the remaining rural strata, there was either no geographical disadvantage or inconclusive findings. Conclusions: Non-metropolitan disadvantage in myocardial infarction rates is confirmed in regional areas and women in very remote areas. This disadvantage is partly explained by the high rates in Aboriginal people. Non-metropolitan dwellers are not uniformly disadvantaged, reflecting the interplay of the many factors contributing to the complex relationship between myocardial infarction incidence and sex, age, Aboriginality and residence. Aboriginal Western Australians in all regions and young non-Aboriginal men living in very remote areas need to be targeted to reduce disparities in myocardial infarction

Reducing the health disparities of Indigenous Australians: time to change focus

Background: Indigenous peoples have worse health than non-Indigenous, are over-represented amongst the poor and disadvantaged, have lower life expectancies, and success in improving disparities is limited. To address this, research usually focuses on disadvantaged and marginalised groups, offering only partial understanding of influences underpinning slow progress. Critical analysis is also required of those with the power to perpetuate or improve health inequities. In this paper, using Australia as a case example, we explore the effects of ‘White’, Anglo-Australian cultural dominance in health service delivery to Indigenous Australians. We address the issue using race as an organising principle, underpinned by relations of power.Methods: Interviews with non-Indigenous medical practitioners in Western Australia with extensive experience in Indigenous health encouraged reflection and articulation of their insights into factors promoting or impeding quality health care to Indigenous Australians. Interviews were audio-taped and transcribed. An inductive, exploratory analysis identified key themes that were reviewed and interrogated in light of existing literature on health care to Indigenous people, race and disadvantage. The researchers’ past experience, knowledge and understanding of health care and Indigenous health assisted with data interpretation. Informal discussions were also held with colleagues working professionally in Indigenous policy, practice and community settings.Results: Racism emerged as a key issue, leading us to more deeply interrogate the role ‘Whiteness’ plays in Indigenous health care. While Whiteness can refer to skin colour, it also represents a racialized social structure where Indigenous knowledge, beliefs and values are subjugated to the dominant western biomedical model in policy and practice. Racism towards Indigenous patients in health services was institutional and interpersonal. Internalised racism was manifest when Indigenous patients incorporated racist attitudes and beliefs into their lived experience, lowering expectations and their sense of self-worth.Conclusions: Current health policies and practices favour standardised care where the voice of those who are marginalised is often absent. Examining the effectiveness of such models in reducing health disparities requires health providers to critically reflect on whether policies and practices promote or compromise Indigenous health and wellbeing - an important step in changing the discourse that places Indigenous people at the centre of the problem

Owning solutions: A collaborative model to improve quality in hospital care for Aboriginal Australians

Well-documented health disparities between Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander (hereafter referred to as Aboriginal) and non-Aboriginal Australians are underpinned by complex historical and social factors. The effects of colonisation including racism continue to impact negatively on Aboriginal health outcomes, despite being under-recognised and under-reported. Many Aboriginal people find hospitals unwelcoming and are reluctant to attend for diagnosis and treatment, particularly with few Aboriginal health professionals employed on these facilities. In this paper, scientific literature and reports on Aboriginal health-care, methodology and cross-cultural education are reviewed to inform a collaborative model of hospital-based organisational change. The paper proposes a collaborative model of care to improve health service delivery by building capacity in Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal personnel by recruiting more Aboriginal health professionals, increasing knowledge and skills to establish good relationships between non-Aboriginal care providers and Aboriginal patients and their families, delivering quality care that is respectful of culture and improving Aboriginal health outcomes.A key element of model design, implementation and evaluation is critical reflection on barriers and facilitators to providing respectful and culturally safe quality care at systemic, interpersonal and patient/family-centred levels. Nurses are central to addressing the current state of inequity and are pivotal change agents within the proposed model