Search

Concern exists that the growing over-representation of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children and young people in out-of-home care (OOHC) across Australia is perpetuating historical, discriminatory child removal policies and practices. The disproportionate number of Indigenous children in OOHC is increasing at the same time as growing multi-jurisdictional policy and legal mandate for Indigenous self-determination, leadership, and cultural connectedness in the OOHC space. This study aims to provide evidence and instruction to social work educators, policymakers and practitioners in Australia's complex child protection, wellbeing, and justice systems about why and how Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander-controlled organizations are best placed to lead OOHC service delivery for Indigenous children, their family and community. The qualitative research, located in Queensland, engages the knowledge and experience of Elders, Indigenous child safety professionals and Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander young adults who have recently exited OOHC to explore the importance of Indigenous-led OOHC service provision for generating genuine, intergenerational systemic change. Ten themes or authoritative Directives to non-Indigenous stakeholders are elicited and discussed. The paper concludes with three recommendations that press for a shift in the Western values and practices that underscore the monitoring and evaluation of Indigenous-led OOHC service providers by government. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: There is limited research available regarding the prevalence rates of psychiatric illness in Indigenous Australians, and the available literature varies widely in terms of methods and findings. Culturally valid and appropriate tools are needed to ensure accurate outcomes. The purpose of this review is to examine the methods used to diagnose psychiatric disorders in Indigenous Australians and identify whether these are culturally appropriate or valid. Method: A systematic search of available literature was undertaken in electronic databases (PubMed, Scopus, PsycInfo, PsycArticles, Web of Science, Medline, and Informit Health Indigenous Australians Peoples Collections). Narrative synthesis was used to analyse the data obtained, with a quantitative evaluations of study quality and cultural validity. Results: Twelve articles were included for review. Six studies were of diagnostic tools and none had been validated for use with Indigenous Australians. Another six used practitioner assessment. Some studies indirectly referenced cultural competence on behalf of the practitioner, but again on the whole this was lacking. Conclusions: Further validation of the use of diagnostic instruments in Indigenous Australians is needed so that the prevalence of psychiatric disorders in this population can be accurately determined. In addition, practitioners working with Indigenous Australians should have some training in cultural awareness or competence, and consider the cultural appropriateness of diagnostic tools when applied to this population. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Rural medical workforce shortage contributes to health disadvantage experienced by rural communities worldwide. This study aimed to determine the regional results of an Australian Government sponsored national program to enhance the Australian rural medical workforce by recruiting rural background students and establishing rural clinical schools (RCS). In particular, we wished to determine predictors of graduates’ longer-term rural practice and whether the predictors differ between general practitioners (GPs) and specialists. Methods: A cross-sectional cohort study, conducted in 2012, of 729 medical graduates of The University of Queensland 2002–2011. The outcome of interest was primary place of graduates’ practice categorised as rural for at least 50% of time since graduation (‘Longer-term Rural Practice’, LTRP) among GPs and medical specialists. The main exposures were rural background (RB) or metropolitan background (MB), and attendance at a metropolitan clinical school (MCS) or the Rural Clinical School for one year (RCS-1) or two years (RCS-2). Results: Independent predictors of LTRP (odds ratio [95% confidence interval]) were RB (2.10 [1.37–3.20]), RCS-1 (2.85 [1.77–4.58]), RCS-2 (5.38 [3.15–9.20]), GP (3.40 [2.13–5.43]), and bonded scholarship (2.11 [1.19–3.76]). Compared to being single, having a metropolitan background partner was a negative predictor (0.34 [0.21–0.57]). The effects of RB and RCS were additive—compared to MB and MCS (Reference group): RB and RCS-1 (6.58[3.32–13.04]), RB and RCS-2 (10.36[4.89–21.93]). Although specialists were less likely than GPs to be in LTRP, the pattern of the effects of rural exposures was similar, although some significant differences in the effects of the duration of RCS attendance, bonded scholarships and partner’s background were apparent. Conclusions: Among both specialists and GPs, rural background and rural clinical school attendance are independent, duration-dependent, and additive, predictors of longer-term rural practice. Metropolitan-based medical schools can enhance both specialist and GP rural medical workforce by enrolling rural background medical students and providing them with long-term rural undergraduate clinical training. Policy settings to achieve optimum rural workforce outcomes may differ between specialists and GPs. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article presents a review of literature to identify the prevalence of psychiatric disorders in Australia's Indigenous populations. Topics include the use of the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) model, the limited evidence on the occurrence of psychiatric disorders for indigenous Australians based on 17 articles that met the eligibility criteria, and why future research should focus on the prevalence of psychiatric disorders among these people.

The Indigenous populations of Australia and New Zealand are considered at higher risk of mood and anxiety disorders but many studies do not include direct comparisons with similar non-Indigenous controls. We conducted a systematic search of relevant electronic databases, as well as snowballing and targeted searches of the grey literature. Studies were included for meta-analysis if they compared rates of mood and anxiety disorders between Indigenous and non-Indigenous Australians or Maori. Seven Australian and 10 NZ studies were included. Overall, Indigenous people in both countries did not have significantly higher rates of disorder. However, in terms of specific disorders, there were differences in risk by gender, country (Australia or NZ), disorder type, and prevalence (current, 12-month or lifetime). For instance, Indigenous Australians and Maori both had significantly lower rates of simple phobias (current prevalence) and Maori participants had significantly lower rates of both lifetime simple phobia and generalised anxiety disorders. By contrast, Indigenous Australians had significantly higher rates of bipolar affective disorder and social phobia (current prevalence). Generalisations regarding the risk of psychiatric disorders in Indigenous people cannot therefore be made as this varies by several factors. These include disorder type, sociodemographic factors, Indigenous origin and study method. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]