Search

Globally, there is a growing acknowledgment of Indigenous Peoples' rights to control data related to their communities. This is seen in the development of Indigenous Data Governance standards. As health data collection increases, it's crucial to apply these standards in research involving Indigenous communities. Our study, therefore, aims to systematically review research using routinely collected health data of Indigenous Peoples, understanding the Indigenous Data Governance approaches and the associated advantages and challenges. We searched electronic databases for studies from 2013 to 2022, resulting in 85 selected articles. Of these, 65 (77%) involved Indigenous Peoples in the research, and 60 (71%) were authored by Indigenous individuals or organisations. While most studies (93%) provided ethical approval details, only 18 (21%) described Indigenous guiding principles, 35 (41%) reported on data sovereignty, and 28 (33%) addressed consent. This highlights the increasing focus on Indigenous Data Governance in utilising health data. Leveraging existing data sources in line with Indigenous data governance principles is vital for better understanding Indigenous health outcomes., (© 2024. The Author(s).)

Problem: Establishment of Birthing on Country services owned and governed by Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Community Controlled Health Services has been slow., Background: Birthing on Country services have demonstrated health and cost benefits and require redesign of maternity care. During the Building On Our Strengths feasibility study, use of endorsed midwives and licensing of birth centres has proven difficult., Question: What prevents Community Controlled Health Services from implementing Birthing on Country services in Queensland and New South Wales?, Methods: Participatory action research identified implementation barriers. We conducted iterative document analysis of instruments to inform government lobbying through synthesis of policy, economic, social, technological, legal, and environmental factors., Findings: Through cycles of participatory action research, we analysed 17 documents: 1) policy barriers prevent Community Controlled Health Services from employing endorsed midwives to provide intrapartum care in public hospitals; 2) economic barriers include lack of sustainable funding stream and inadequate Medicare-billing for endorsed midwives; and 3) legal barriers require a medical practitioner in a birth centre. While social barriers (e.g., colonisation, medicalisation) underpin regulations, these were beyond the scope; technological and environmental barriers were not identified., Discussion: Findings are consistent with the literature on barriers to midwifery practice. Recommendations include a national audit of barriers to Birthing on Country services including healthcare practice insurance, and development of a funding stream. Additionally, private maternity facility regulation must align with evidence on safe birth centre operation., Conclusion: Government can address barriers to scale-up of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Community Controlled Birthing on Country services., Competing Interests: Conflict of interest None declared., (Copyright © 2024 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Background: Strategies to reduce over-representation of Indigenous children in out-of-home care must start in pregnancy given Indigenous babies are 6 % of infants (<1 year), yet 43 % of infants in out-of-home care., Objective: To determine if an Indigenous-led, multi-agency, partnership redesign of maternity services decreases the likelihood of babies being removed at birth., Participants and Setting: Women carrying an Indigenous baby/babies who gave birth at the Mater Mothers' Public Hospital, Brisbane (2013-2019)., Methods: A prospective, non-randomised, intervention trial evaluated a multi-agency service redesign. Women pregnant with an Indigenous baby birthing at a tertiary hospital were offered standard care or Birthing in Our Community (BiOC) service. We compared likelihood of babies being removed by Child Protection Services (CPS) at birth by model of care. Inverse probability of treatment propensity score weighting controlled baseline confounders and calculated treatment effect. Standardized differences were calculated to assess balance of risk factors for each copy of multiple imputation. Australian New Zealand Clinical Trial Registry, ACTRN12618001365257., Results: In 2013-2019, 1988 women gave birth to 2044 Indigenous babies, with 40 women having babies removed at birth (9 BiOC, 31 standard care). Adjusted odds of baby removal were significantly lower for mothers in BiOC compared to standard care (AOR 0.37, 95 % CI 0.16, 0.84). In total, 2.0 % of Indigenous babies were removed by CPS; eight times higher than non-Indigenous babies at the same hospital (0.25 %)., Conclusions: BiOC reduced removals of newborn Indigenous babies likely disrupting generational cycles of CPS contact, trauma, and maltreatment, and contributing to short and long-term health and wellbeing benefits for mothers and babies., Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest The research team received an Australian NHMRC partnership grant (GNT1077036), and the partner organisations funded delivery of the new health service, with additional funding from the Queensland Government to the Institute for Urban Indigenous Health (to AC, CN, and KWa) to expand health service delivery. During the study: SKi and YG were employed by Mater Research Institute and University Queensland, then Charles Darwin University; SH was employed by Mater Research Institute then Charles Darwin University; YR was employed by the Institute of Urban Indigenous Health, then Mater Research Institute, then Charles Darwin University. CN, AC, JCu, KWa, and SKr were employed by Institute of Urban Indigenous Health, with JCu then employed by Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Community Health Service Brisbane, and SKr then employed by Charles Darwin University. MR, KWi and JCo were employed by Mater Hospital, then JCo employed by the Institute of Urban Indigenous Health. Some of the NHMRC funding that supported the research contributed to salaries of YR, SH and YG. BOD received funding from the Australian Government (Research Training Program Scholarship) and the Alison Mary Jackson and Nancy Rosemary Kingsland Scholarship, through the Molly Wardaguga Research Centre as part of her PhD Candidature at Charles Darwin University. We declare no other competing interests., (Copyright © 2024 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Background: Preterm birth is the leading cause of morbidity and mortality for children under five years with First Nations babies experiencing twice the rate of other Australians. The Birthing in Our Community (BiOC) service was implemented in a metropolitan centre in Australia and showed a significant reduction in preterm birth. We aimed to assess the cost-effectiveness of the BiOC service in reducing preterm births compared to Standard Care, from a health system perspective., Methods: Women who were carrying a First Nations baby and attending the Mater Mothers Public Hospital (Brisbane, QLD, Australia) were allocated to either BiOC or Standard Care service. Birth records were extracted from the hospital's routinely collected and prospectively entered database. The time horizon extended from first presentation in pregnancy up to six weeks after birth for mothers and 28 days for infants, or until discharged from hospital. All direct antenatal, birth, postnatal and neonatal costs were included. The proportion of preterm birth was calculated, and cost was estimated in 2019 Australian dollars. The incremental cost and proportion of preterm birth differences were adjusted using inverse probability of treatment weighting methods., Findings: Between Jan 1 2013, and Jun 30, 2019, 1816 mothers gave births to 1867 First Nations babies at the Mater Mothers Public Hospital. After exclusions, 1636 mother-baby pairs were included in the analyses: 840 in the Standard Care group and 796 in the BiOC service. Relative to Standard Care, the BiOC service was associated with a reduced proportion of preterm birth (-5.34%, [95% CI -8.69%, -1.98%]) and cost savings (-AU$4810, [95% CI -7519, -2101]) per mother-baby pair. The BiOC service was associated with better outcomes and cost less than Standard Care., Interpretation: The BiOC service offers a cost-effective alternative to Standard Care in reducing preterm birth for Australian First Nations families. The cost savings were driven by less interventions and procedures in birth and fewer neonatal admissions. Investing in comprehensive, community-led models of care improves outcomes at reduced cost., Funding: The Australian National Health and Medical Research Council (APP1077036)., Competing Interests: We declare no competing interests., (© 2023 The Author(s).)

Background: With the impact of over two centuries of colonisation in Australia, First Nations families experience a disproportionate burden of adverse pregnancy and birthing outcomes. First Nations mothers are 3-5 times more likely than other mothers to experience maternal mortality; babies are 2-3 times more likely to be born preterm, low birth weight or not to survive their first year. 'Birthing on Country' incorporates a multiplicity of interpretations but conveys a resumption of maternity services in First Nations Communities with Community governance for the best start to life. Redesigned services offer women and families integrated, holistic care, including carer continuity from primary through tertiary services; services coordination and quality care including safe and supportive spaces. The overall aim of Building On Our Strengths (BOOSt) is to facilitate and assess Birthing on Country expansion into two settings - urban and rural; with scale-up to include First Nations-operated birth centres. This study will build on our team's earlier work - a Birthing on Country service established and evaluated in an urban setting, that reported significant perinatal (and organisational) benefits, including a 37% reduction in preterm births, among other improvements., Methods: Using community-based, participatory action research, we will collaborate to develop, implement and evaluate new Birthing on Country care models. We will conduct a mixed-methods, prospective birth cohort study in two settings, comparing outcomes for women having First Nations babies with historical controls. Our analysis of feasibility, acceptability, clinical and cultural safety, effectiveness and cost, will use data including (i) women's experiences collected through longitudinal surveys (three timepoints) and yarning interviews; (ii) clinical records; (iii) staff and stakeholder views and experiences; (iv) field notes and meeting minutes; and (v) costs data. The study includes a process, impact and outcome evaluation of this complex health services innovation., Discussion: Birthing on Country applies First Nations governance and cultural safety strategies to support optimum maternal, infant, and family health and wellbeing. Women's experiences, perinatal outcomes, costs and other operational implications will be reported for Communities, service providers, policy advisors, and for future scale-up., Trial Registration: Australia & New Zealand Clinical Trial Registry # ACTRN12620000874910 (2 September 2020)., (© 2023. The Author(s).)

Background: There is an urgency to redress unacceptable maternal and infant health outcomes for First Nations families in Australia. A multi-agency partnership between two Aboriginal Community-controlled health services and a tertiary hospital in urban Australia designed, implemented, and evaluated the new Birthing in Our Community (BiOC) service. In this study, we aimed to assess and report the clinical effectiveness of the BiOC service on key maternal and infant health outcomes compared with that of standard care., Methods: Pregnant women attending the Mater Mothers Public Hospital (Brisbane, QLD, Australia) who were having a First Nations baby were invited to receive the BiOC service. In this prospective, non-randomised, interventional trial of the service, we specifically enrolled women who intended to birth at the study hospital, and had a referral from a family doctor or Aboriginal Medical Service. Participants were offered either standard care services or the BiOC service. Prespecified primary outcomes to test the effectiveness of the BiOC service versus standard care were the proportion of women attending five or more antenatal visits, smoking after 20 weeks of gestation, who had a preterm birth (<37 weeks), and who were exclusively breastfeeding at discharge from hospital. We used inverse probability of treatment weighting to balance confounders and calculate treatment effect. This trial is registered with the Australian New Zealand Clinical Trial Registry, ACTRN12618001365257., Findings: Between Jan 1, 2013, and June 30, 2019, 1867 First Nations babies were born at the Mater Mothers Public Hospital. After exclusions, 1422 women received either standard care (656 participants) or the BiOC service (766 participants) and were included in the analyses. Women receiving the BiOC service were more likely to attend five or more antenatal visits (adjusted odds ratio 1·54, 95% CI 1·13-2·09; p=0·0064), less likely to have an infant born preterm (0·62, 0·42-0·93; p=0·019), and more likely to exclusively breastfeed on discharge from hospital (1·34, 1·06-1·70; p=0·014). No difference was found between the two groups for smoking after 20 weeks of gestation, with both showing a reduction compared with smoking levels reported at their hospital booking visit., Interpretation: This study has shown the clinical effectiveness of the BiOC service, which was co-designed by stakeholders and underpinned by Birthing on Country principles. The widespread scale-up of this new service should be prioritised. Dedicated funding, knowledge translation, and implementation science are needed to ensure all First Nations families can access Birthing on Country services that are adapted for their specific contexts., Funding: Australian National Health and Medical Research Council., (Copyright © 2021 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an Open Access article under the CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 license. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)