Search

Background: Given the persistence of Indigenous health inequities across national contexts, many countries have adopted strategies to improve the health of Indigenous peoples. Governmental recognition of the unique health needs of Indigenous populations is necessary for the development of targeted programs and policies to achieve universal health coverage. At the same time, the participation of Indigenous peoples in decision-making and program and policy design helps to ensure that barriers to health services are appropriately addressed and promotes the rights of Indigenous peoples to self-determination. Due to similar patterns of Indigenous health and health determinants across borders, there have been calls for greater global collaboration in this field. However, most international studies on Indigenous health policy link Anglo-settler democracies (Canada, Australia, Aotearoa/New Zealand and the United States), despite these countries representing a small fraction of the world's Indigenous people. Aim: This paper examines national-level policy in Australia, Brazil, Chile and New Zealand in relation to governmental recognition of differential Indigenous health needs and engagement with Indigenous peoples in health. The paper aims to examine how Indigenous health needs and engagement are addressed in national policy frameworks within each of the countries in order to contribute to the understanding of how to develop pro-equity policies within national health care systems. Methods: For each country, a review was undertaken of national policies and legislation to support engagement with, and participation of, Indigenous peoples in the identification of their health needs, development of programs and policies to address these needs and which demonstrate governmental recognition of differential Indigenous health needs. Government websites were searched as well as the following databases: Google, OpenGrey, CAB Direct, PubMed, Web of Science and WorldCat. Findings: Each of the four countries have adopted international agreements regarding the engagement of Indigenous peoples in health. However, there is significant variation in the extent to which the principles laid out in these agreements are reflected in national policy, legislation and practice. Brazil and New Zealand both have established national policies to facilitate engagement. In contrast, national policy to enable engagement is relatively lacking in Australia and Chile. Australia, Brazil and New Zealand each have significant initiatives and policy structures in place to address Indigenous health. However, in Brazil this is not necessarily reflected in practice and although New Zealand has national policies these have been recently reported as insufficient and, in fact, may be contributing to health inequity for Māori. In comparison to the other three countries, Chile has relatively few national initiatives or policies in place to support Indigenous engagement or recognise the distinct health needs of Indigenous communities. Conclusions: The adoption of international policy frameworks forms an important step in ensuring that Indigenous peoples are able to participate in the formation and implementation of health policy and programs. However, without the relevant principles being reflected in national legislature, international agreements hold little weight. At the same time, while a national legislative framework facilitates the engagement of Indigenous peoples, such policy may not necessarily translate into practice. Developing multi-level approaches that improve cohesion between international policy, national policy and practice in Indigenous engagement in health is therefore vital. Given that each of the four countries demonstrate strengths and weaknesses across this causal chain, cross-country policy examination provides guidance on strengthening these links. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Indigenous children living in high income countries have a consistently high prevalence of mental health problems. We aimed to identify psychosocial risk and protective factors for mental health in this setting. Methods: A systematic review of studies published between 1996 and 2016 that quantitatively evaluated the association between psychosocial variables and mental health among Indigenous children living in high income countries was conducted. Psychosocial variables were grouped into commonly occurring domains. Individual studies were judged to provide evidence for an association between a domain and either good mental health, poor mental health, or a negligible or inconsistent association. The overall quality of evidence across all studies for each domain was assessed using the Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) guidelines. Results: Forty-seven papers were eligible (mainland US 30 [64%], Canada 8 [17%], Australia 7 [15%], Hawaii 4 [9%]), including 58,218 participants aged 4-20 years. Most papers were cross-sectional (39, 83%) and measured negative mental health outcomes (41, 87%). Children's negative cohesion with their families and the presence of adverse events appeared the most reliable predictors of increased negative mental health outcomes. Children's substance use, experiences of discrimination, comorbid internalising symptoms, and negative parental behaviour also provided evidence of associations with negative mental health outcomes. Positive family and peer relationships, high self-esteem and optimism were associated with increased positive mental health outcomes. Conclusions: Quantitative research investigating Indigenous children's mental health is largely cross-sectional and focused upon negative outcomes. Indigenous children living in high income countries share many of the same risk and protective factors associated with mental health. The evidence linking children's familial environment, psychological traits, substance use and experiences of discrimination with mental health outcomes highlights key targets for more concerted efforts to develop initiatives to improve the mental health of Indigenous children. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Indigenous peoples in developed countries have reduced life expectancies, particularly from chronic diseases. The lack of access to and take up of palliative care services of Indigenous peoples is an ongoing concern. Objectives: To examine and learn from published studies on provision of culturally safe palliative care service delivery to Indigenous people in Australia, New Zealand (NZ), Canada and the United States of America (USA); and to compare Indigenous peoples' preferences, needs, opportunities and barriers to palliative care. Methods: A comprehensive search of multiple databases was undertaken. Articles were included if they were published in English from 2000 onwards and related to palliative care service delivery for Indigenous populations; papers could use quantitative or qualitative approaches. Common themes were identified using thematic synthesis. Studies were evaluated using Daly's hierarchy of evidence-for-practice in qualitative research. Results: Of 522 articles screened, 39 were eligible for inclusion. Despite diversity in Indigenous peoples' experiences across countries, some commonalities were noted in the preferences for palliative care of Indigenous people: to die close to or at home; involvement of family; and the integration of cultural practices. Barriers identified included inaccessibility, affordability, lack of awareness of services, perceptions of palliative care, and inappropriate services. Identified models attempted to address these gaps by adopting the following strategies: community engagement and ownership; flexibility in approach; continuing education and training; a whole-of-service approach; and local partnerships among multiple agencies. Better engagement with Indigenous clients, an increase in number of palliative care patients, improved outcomes, and understanding about palliative care by patients and their families were identified as positive achievements. Conclusions: The results provide a comprehensive overview of identified effective practices with regards to palliative care delivered to Indigenous populations to guide future program developments in this field. Further research is required to explore the palliative care needs and experiences of Indigenous people living in urban areas. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]