Search

Compared with most other Organization for Economic Co‐operation and Development (OECD) countries, information about the patterns of health service use for children from immigrant families in Australia is currently limited, and internationally, data on unmet healthcare needs are scarce. This study aims to examine the distribution of health service utilisation and unmet healthcare needs for immigrant children aged 10–11 years in Australia. We drew on data from the Longitudinal Study of Australian Children Birth (B; n = 5,107) and Kindergarten (K; n = 4,983) cohorts. The exposure was family immigration background collected at 0–1 (B‐cohort) and 4–5 (K‐cohort) years. Outcomes were parent‐reported child health service use and unmet healthcare needs (defined as the difference between services needed and services received) at 10–11 years. Logistic regression analyses were used to examine associations between family immigration background and health service use/unmet healthcare needs, adjusting for potential confounders. Results showed that one‐third of Australian children (B‐cohort: 29.0%; K‐cohort: 33.4%) came from immigrant families. There were similar patterns of health service use and unmet healthcare needs between children from English‐speaking immigrant and Australian‐born families. However, children from non‐English‐speaking immigrant families used fewer health services, including paediatric, dental, mental health and emergency ward services. There was a disparity between the services used when considering children's health needs, particularly for paediatric specialist services (B‐cohort: OR = 2.43, 95% CI 1.11–5.31; K‐cohort: OR = 2.72, 95% CI 1.32–5.58). Findings indicate that Australian children from non‐English‐speaking immigrant families experience more unmet healthcare needs and face more barriers in accessing health services. Further effort is needed to ensure that the healthcare system meets the needs of all families. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Children born preterm are at risk of visual-processing impairments. Several lines of evidence have contributed to the rationale that docosahexaenoic acid (DHA) supplementation of preterm infants may improve outcomes in visual processing. Objective: The aim was to determine whether at 7 y of age children who were born very preterm and who received a high-DHA diet have better visual-processing outcomes than do infants fed a standard-DHA diet. Design: This was a follow-up study in a subgroup of children from a randomized controlled trial. Infants were randomly assigned to milk containing a higher concentration of DHA (1% of total fatty acids; high-DHA group) or a standard amount of DHA (0.2-0.3% of total fatty acids as DHA; control group). The randomization schedule was stratified by sex and birth weights of <1250 or ≥1250 g. A total of 104 (49 in the high-DHA group and 55 in the standard-DHA group) children aged 7 y were assessed on a range of visual-processing measures, including visual acuity, contrast sensitivity, vernier acuity, binocular stereopsis, and visual perception. Results: There was no evidence of differences between the high-DHA and standard-DHA groups in any of the visual-processing measures. In the majority (12 of 13) of variables assessed, the direction of effect favored the control group. The study was large enough to detect a moderate treatment effect, if one truly existed. Conclusion: Supplementing human milk with DHA at a dose of ~1% of total fatty acids given in the first months of life to very preterm infants does not appear to confer any long-term benefit for visual processing at school age. This trial was registered at anzctr.org/au as ACTRN12606000327583. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]