Search

Background: The stillbirth rate for Australian Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander infants remains higher than non‐Indigenous rates. Risks for stillbirth include maternal factors such as ethnicity, age, geographic location, and physical health. Fetal risk factors include gestational age, birthweight and congenital anomalies. The total stillbirth rate for all babies born at the Townsville University Hospital during the study period was 11 per 1000 births. Aims: To identify Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander stillbirth rates, risk factors and causes in North Queensland. Materials and Methods: A retrospective chart audit was conducted to identify Indigenous women who had experienced stillbirth in the Townsville University Hospital between January 2005 and December 2014. Results: Thirty‐two charts were available for audit. The stillbirth rate for non‐Indigenous infants was 10.3 per 1000 births. The stillbirth rate for Indigenous infants was 11.7 per 1000 births. Almost half of the women lived in rural, remote or very remote areas. Maternal risk factors included poorer physical health, such as obesity, diabetes, hypertension, and smoking, fertility issues and lack of antenatal care. Fetal risk factors included congenital anomalies, including cardiac and skeletal abnormalities, placental disorders, and preterm birth. Conclusions: Stillbirth risk remains higher for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander women and their babies. Supporting women to enhance their health is paramount, particularly during pregnancy. Further, increasing awareness of stillbirth risk factors through education for both women and healthcare professionals will support culturally responsive care for women and their families to mitigate stillbirth risk and enhance pregnancy outcomes in non‐urban Queensland. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The stillbirth rate for Australian Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander infants is twice that for non‐Indigenous infants. Autopsy is the gold standard for fetal investigation; however, parental consent is often not given. There is little research investigating the drivers of parents' decision‐making for autopsy after stillbirth. Aims: The current study explored the reasons why Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander women did or did not give permission to autopsy after stillbirth. Materials and Methods: Five Aboriginal and/or Torres Strait Islander women participated in semi‐structured interviews. Thematic analysis was conducted within a phenomenological framework. Results: Five themes were identified as reasons for giving permission – to find out why the baby died; to confirm diagnosis; to understand future risk; to help others; and doubt about maternal causes. Four themes were identified as reasons for declining permission – not asked in a sensitive manner; not enough time to think; distress about the autopsy procedure; and unwilling to agree. There was a lack of acceptability of the lengthy timeframe for the availability of autopsy results as families usually wait between three and nine months. This lengthy waiting period negatively impacted upon families' health and wellbeing. Conclusions: It is important for health professionals to understand the factors that parents consider when giving permission for autopsy after stillbirth. It is hoped that an increase in autopsy rate will enhance the understanding of the causes of stillbirth and ultimately decrease the stillbirth rate for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander families. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: There remains a concern that Indigenous Australians have been over-researched without corresponding improvements in their health; this trend is applicable to most Indigenous populations globally. This debate article has a dual purpose: 1) to open a frank conversation about the value of research to Indigenous Australian populations; and 2) to stimulate ways of thinking about potential resolutions to the lack of progress made in the Indigenous research benefit debate. Discussion: Capturing the meaning of research benefit takes the form of ethical value-oriented methodological considerations in the decision-making processes of Indigenous research endeavours. Because research practices come from Western knowledge bases, attaining such positions in research means reconciling both Indigenous and Western knowledge systems to produce new methodologies that guide planning, evaluating and monitoring of research practices as necessary. Increasingly, more sophisticated performance measures have been implemented to ensure academic impact and benefits are captured. Assessing societal and other non-academic impacts and benefits however, has not been accorded corresponding attention. Research reform has only focussed on research translation in more recent years. The research impact debate must take account of the various standards of accountability (to whom), impact priorities (for whom), positive and negative impacts, and biases that operate in describing impact and measuring benefit. Summary: A perennial question in Indigenous research discourse is whether the abundance of research conducted; purportedly to improve health, is justified and benefits Indigenous people in ways that are meaningful and valued by them. Different research stakeholders have different conceptions of the value and nature of research, its conduct, what it should achieve and the kinds of benefits expected. We need to work collaboratively and listen more closely to the voice of Indigenous Australians to better understand, demonstrate and measure health research benefits. The authors conclude that as an imperative, a systematic benefit assessment strategy that includes identification of research priorities and planning, monitoring and evaluation components needs to be developed and implemented across research projects. In Indigenous health research, this will often mean adopting a benefit-led approach by changing the way research is done and preferencing alternative research methodologies. As a point of departure to improving impact and reaching mutually beneficial outcomes for researchers and partners in Indigenous health research, we need to routinise the assessment of benefit from outset of research as one of the standards toward which we work. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This study aimed to assess the impact of a complex community-based tobacco control program in eight remote north Queensland Indigenous communities with high rates of tobacco use. A community-based tobacco intervention trial was conducted over one year in five intervention sites and three control sites in far north Queensland with predominantly Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander populations. The intervention was composed of six components: a school-based education program ‘Smokin’ No Way’, ‘SmokeCheck’ tobacco brief intervention training for health workers, assistance to develop workplace smoke-free policies, an Event Support Program, ‘Smoke Rings’ support group and enforcement of tobacco sales legislation. Household surveys of self-reported tobacco use were conducted at baseline and one year after the interventions, along with interviews with key individuals and organisations, to assess intervention implementation. It was found that there was a modest effect on self-reported daily tobacco use and mean number of cigarettes smoked weekly after 12 months in intervention communities. There were non-significant declines in self-reported smoking and mean cigarettes smoked per week in aggregated control communities. Independent evaluation of fidelity of implementation found major shortcomings in actual program delivery. To enhance success of future interventions, fidelity of implementation should be ensured and a longer implementation period utilised. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

Objectives: This paper describes a research program that has operationalized the links between empowerment at personal/family, group/organizational and community/structural levels and successful mechanisms to address Indigenous social and emotional wellbeing issues such as family violence and abuse, suicide prevention and incarceration. Methods: A two-pronged approach, involving the Family Wellbeing Empowerment Program and Participatory Action Research, was used to enhance the capacity of program participants and their communities to take greater charge of issues affecting their health and wellbeing. Results: Key program outcomes include an enhancement of participants' sense of self worth, resilience, problem-solving ability, ability to address immediate family difficulties as well as belief in the mutability of the social environment. There is also evidence of increasing capacity to address wider structural issues such as poor school attendance rates, the critical housing shortage, endemic family violence, alcohol and drug misuse, chronic disease, and over-representation of Indigenous men in the criminal justice system. Participants are also breaking new ground in areas such as values-based Indigenous workforce development and organizational change, as well as issues about contemporary Indigenous spirituality. Conclusions: The use of a long-term (10-year) community research strategy focussing directly on empowerment has demonstrated the power of this approach to facilitate Indigenous people's capacity to regain social and emotional wellbeing and begin to rebuild the social norms of their families and community. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]