Search

Background: Recent deliberations by Australian public health researchers and practitioners produced an ethical framework of how decisions should be made to distribute pandemic influenza vaccine. The outcome of the deliberations was that the population should be considered in two categories, Level 1 and Level 2, with Level 1 groups being offered access to the pandemic influenza vaccine before other groups. However, the public health researchers and practitioners recognised the importance of making space for public opinion and sought to understand citizens values and preferences, especially First Nations peoples. Methods: We conducted First Nations Community Panels in two Australian locations in 2019 to assess First Nations people's informed views through a deliberative process on pandemic influenza vaccination distribution strategies. Panels were asked to make decisions on priority levels, coverage and vaccine doses. Results: Two panels were conducted with eighteen First Nations participants from a range of ages who were purposively recruited through local community networks. Panels heard presentations from public health experts, cross-examined expert presenters and deliberated on the issues. Both panels agreed that First Nations peoples be assigned Level 1 priority, be offered pandemic influenza vaccination before other groups, and be offered two doses of vaccine. Reasons for this decision included First Nations people's lives, culture and families are important; are at-risk of severe health outcomes; and experience barriers and challenges to accessing safe, quality and culturally appropriate healthcare. We found that communication strategies, utilising and upskilling the First Nations health workforce, and targeted vaccination strategies are important elements in pandemic preparedness and response with First Nations peoples. Conclusions: First Nations Community Panels supported prioritising First Nations peoples for pandemic influenza vaccination distribution and offering greater protection by using a two-dose full course to fewer people if there are initial supply limitations, instead of one dose to more people, during the initial phase of the vaccine roll out. The methodology and findings can help inform efforts in planning for future pandemic vaccination strategies for First Nations peoples in Australia. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Indigenous peoples globally are at increased risk of COVID‐19‐associated morbidity and mortality. However, data that describe immune responses to SARS‐CoV‐2 infection in Indigenous populations are lacking. We evaluated immune responses in Australian First Nations peoples hospitalized with COVID‐19. Our work comprehensively mapped out inflammatory, humoral and adaptive immune responses following SARS‐CoV‐2 infection. Patients were recruited early following the lifting of strict public health measures in the Northern Territory, Australia, between November 2021 and May 2022. Australian First Nations peoples recovering from COVID‐19 showed increased levels of MCP‐1 and IL‐8 cytokines, IgG‐antibodies against Delta‐RBD and memory SARS‐CoV‐2‐specific T cell responses prior to hospital discharge in comparison with hospital admission, with resolution of hyperactivated HLA‐DR+CD38+ T cells. SARS‐CoV‐2 infection elicited coordinated ASC, Tfh and CD8+ T cell responses in concert with CD4+ T cell responses. Delta and Omicron RBD‐IgG, as well as Ancestral N‐IgG antibodies, strongly correlated with Ancestral RBD‐IgG antibodies and Spike‐specific memory B cells. We provide evidence of broad and robust immune responses following SARS‐CoV‐2 infection in Indigenous peoples, resembling those of non‐Indigenous COVID‐19 hospitalized patients. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Cultural differences between health professionals and Indigenous peoples contribute to health inequalities, and effective cross-cultural communication and person-centred healthcare are critical remedial elements. Community pharmacists can play a significant role by reducing medication-related problems through medication reviews, yet barriers to access include cultural and linguistic challenges. The Indigenous Medication Review Service (IMeRSe) aimed to address these barriers via a culturally responsive intervention. The aim of this paper is to present the cross-cultural training framework developed as a component of this intervention and the feasibility evaluation of the first stage of the training framework. Methods: A training framework was developed, emphasising pharmacists' skills and confidence in effective cross-cultural communication and relationship-building with Indigenous Australians (Please note that the use of the term 'Indigenous' in this manuscript includes all Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people and acknowledges their rich traditions and heterogenous cultures) across three stages: (1) online and workshop-based, covering Indigenous history and health, cross-cultural communication and a holistic, strengths-based approach to intervention delivery; (2) orientation to local Aboriginal Health Services, community and cultural protocols; and (3) ongoing mentoring. The feasibility evaluation of the first stage included the following: self-reported levels of cultural capability, cultural confidence and skills, motivators and barriers to working with Indigenous Australians, assessed pre- and post-training. Participants completed self-administered questionnaires including a 22-item validated Cultural Capability Measurement Tool. Paired t tests assessed change in mean scores of Likert scale data. Results: Stage 1 development resulted in an 8.5-h standardised cross-cultural training programme tested with 39 pharmacists working across urban and rural/remote Australia. Thirty-six pharmacists completed the feasibility evaluation (75.7% female, all non-Indigenous, 75.7% never attended prior cross-cultural training). Participants reported overall acceptability with training; the majority perceived it added value to their practice. Improved cultural capability post-training was reflected in increased scores for 21/22 items, nine reaching statistical significance. There were significant improvements for all 26 confidence and skills statements, and selected motivational and barrier statements, particularly participants role in improving Indigenous health outcomes and cross-cultural communication. Conclusions: This study provides preliminary evidence that the training programme was feasible to deliver and prepared pharmacists to deliver a culturally responsive medication review intervention. The online knowledge-based modules and face-to-face workshops provide a standardised framework for larger-scale implementation of the intervention training. Trial registration: Australia and New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry ACTRN12618000188235.Prospectively registered 22 January 2018. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Pandemics such as COVID-19 are a serious public health risk for Australian Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities, yet primary healthcare systems are not well resourced to respond to such urgent events. At the start of the COVID-19 pandemic, a federal government advisory group recommended a rapid, tailored Indigenous response to prevent predicted high morbidity and mortality rates. This paper examines the efforts of one ACCHO, which in the absence of dedicated funding, pivoted its operations in response to COVID-19. Gurriny Yealamucka Health Service (Gurriny) is the only primary healthcare service in the discrete Indigenous community of Yarrabah, Far North Queensland.Methods: The research was conducted at the request of the Chief Executive Officer of Gurriny. Using grounded theory methods, thirteen Gurriny staff and five Yarrabah and government leaders and community members were interviewed, transcripts of these interviews and 59 documents were imported into NVIVO-12 and coded, and key concepts were compared, organised into higher order constructs, then structured into a theoretical framework.Results: Gurriny responded to COVID-19 by leading with local solutions to keep Yarrabah safe. Four key strategies were implemented: managing the health service operations, realigning services, educating and supporting community, and working across agencies. These strategies were enabled or hindered by five conditions: the governance and leadership capacity of Gurriny, relying on the health taskforce, locking the door, "copping it", and (not) having resources. A year after the first case was experienced in Australia and on the eve of vaccine rollout to Indigenous communities, there have been no COVID-19 cases in Yarrabah.Discussion: The success of the locally led, holistic, comprehensive and culturally safe response of Gurriny suggests that such tailored place-based approaches to pandemics (and other health issues) are appropriate, but require dedicated resourcing. Key challenges were the fragmented and rapidly changing government processes, poorly coordinated communication and resource allocation channels, and bottlenecks in hierarchical funding approval processes.Conclusions: The COVID-19 response in Yarrabah demonstrates the need for governance reform towards greater resourcing and support for local decision making by Aboriginal community-controlled health organisations. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The Northern Territory (NT) of Australia has a mix of climates, sparsely distributed population and a large proportion of the populace are Indigenous Australians, and influenza is known to have a disproportionate impact upon this group. Understanding the epidemiology of influenza in this region would inform public health strategies. Objectives: To assess if there are consistent patterns in characteristics of influenza outbreaks in the NT. Methods: Laboratory confirmed influenza cases in the NT are notified to the NT Centre for Disease Control. We conducted analyses on notified cases from 2007‐2016 to determine incidence rates (by age group, Indigenous status and area), seasonality of cases and spatial distribution of influenza types. Notified cases were linked to laboratory datasets to update information on influenza type or subtype Results: The disparity in Indigenous and non‐Indigenous notification rates varied by age group, with rate ratios for Indigenous versus non‐Indigenous ranging from 1.58 (95% CI:1.39, 1.80) for ages 15‐24 to 5.56 (95% CI: 4.71, 6.57) for ages 55‐64. The disparity between Indigenous and non‐Indigenous notification rates appeared higher in the Central Australia region. Indigenous versus non‐Indigenous hospitalisation and mortality rate ratios were 6.51 (95% CI: 5.91, 7.18) and 5.46 (95% CI: 2.40, 12.71) respectively. Inter‐seasonal peaks during February and March occurred in 2011, 2013 and 2014, and were due to influenza activity in the tropical north of the NT. Conclusions: Our results highlight the importance of influenza vaccination across all age groups for Indigenous Australians. An early vaccination campaign targeted against outbreaks in February‐March would be best focused on the tropical north. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The objective of this paper is to document the knowledge and experiences of healthcare professionals and researchers in Australia about the barriers to controlling Strongyloides stercoralis in Australian Indigenous communities. Qualitative research methods were used to conduct in-depth semi-structured interviews, which were digitally recorded, transcribed, and participant-checked. Data were thematically analysed to identify significant themes. Five major themes were identified: 1. Barriers to health/treatment; 2. Access to healthcare; 3. Policy; 4. Learning opportunity; and 5. Ideas for intervention. The findings suggest that Australian Indigenous communities will continue to suffer increased morbidity and mortality due to a lack of control or prevention of Strongyloides stercoralis. Issues such as institutional racism, improvements to health promotion, education, socioeconomic determinants, and health care system policy and procedures need to be addressed. This study identifies several direct implications for Indigenous health: • The need for increased knowledge and understanding of the risks to health for Indigenous community members; • The need for prevention policy development for neglected tropical diseases in Indigenous communities; • The need for increased knowledge and understanding of the treatment, diagnosis, and healthcare access concerning Strongyloides stercoralis for health professionals and policymakers who work within Indigenous health; • The need to raise awareness of systematic institutional racism in the control and prevention of neglected tropical diseases in Indigenous communities; and • The need for a health promotion framework that can provide the basis for multiple-level interventions to control and prevent Strongyloides in Indigenous communities. [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]

Background: Strongyloides stercoralis infects human hosts mainly through skin contact with contaminated soil. The result is strongyloidiasis, a parasitic disease, with a unique cycle of auto-infection causing a variety of symptoms and signs, with possible fatality from hyper-infection. Australian Indigenous community members, often living in rural and remote settings, are exposed to and infected with S. stercoralis. The aim of this review is to determine barriers to control of strongyloidiasis. The purpose is to contribute to the development of initiatives for prevention, early detection and effective treatment of strongyloidiasis. Methodology/Principle Findings: Systematic search reviewing research published 2012 and earlier was conducted. Research articles discussing aspects of strongyloidiasis, context of infection and overall health in Indigenous Australians were reviewed. Based on the PRISMA statement, the systematic search of health databases, Academic Search Premier, Informit, Medline, PubMed, AMED, CINAHL, Health Source Nursing and Academic was conducted. Key search terms included strongyloidiasis, Indigenous, Australia, health, and community. 340 articles were retrieved with 16 original research articles published between 1969 and 2006 meeting criteria. Review found barriers to control defined across three key themes, (1) health status, (2) socioeconomic status, and (3) health care literacy and procedures. Conclusions/Significance: This study identifies five points of intervention: (1) develop reporting protocols between health care system and communities; (2) test all Indigenous Australian patients, immunocompromised patients and those exposed to areas with S. stercoralis; (3) health professionals require detailed information on strongyloidiasis and potential for exposure to Indigenous Australian people; (4) to establish testing and treatment initiatives within communities; and (5) to measure and report prevalence rates specific to communities and to act with initiatives based on these results. By defining barriers to control of strongyloidiasis in Australian Indigenous people, improved outcomes of prevention, treatment of strongyloidiasis and increased health overall are attainable. Author Summary: Strongyloides stercoralis, a nematode parasite, has a well-documented history of infecting human hosts in tropic and subtropic regions mainly through skin contact with inhabited soil. The result is strongyloidiasis, a human parasitic disease, with a unique cycle of auto-infection contributing to a variety of symptoms, of which, hyper-infection causing fatality may occur. In Australia, Indigenous community members often located in rural and remote settings, are exposed to and infected with strongyloides. Previous researchers report strongyloidiasis as a recurrent health issue for Indigenous Australians. This is a systematic review to determine the barriers to control for this pernicious pathogen. Barriers to control can be defined across three key themes: (1) health status, (2) socioeconomic status, and (3) health care literacy and procedure. By conceptualizing these barriers and addressing steps to control as outlined in this study, there is potential for improvement in prevention and treatment outcomes of strongyloidiasis and subsequently, overall health for Australian Indigenous people. This study contributes to furthering prevention and treatment of strongyloidiasis, increasing exposure to the issue of strongyloidiasis in Australian Indigenous people. It is the intent of this paper to express the need to have continued research and further health policy directed specifically to eradicate strongyloidiasis in Australian Indigenous communities. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This corrects the article DOI: 10.1038/icb.2015.93 [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]