Search

This paper reviews major developments in Australian poverty research in the 50 years since the Melbourne poverty study established the Henderson measurement framework. It focuses on the limitations of the dominant, but narrow income (poverty line) approach used in Australia, contrasts it with the deprivation approach pioneered and refined in the United Kingdom, and shows how this provides more compelling evidence that poverty exists. Against the background of recent developments in international poverty research, the paper identifies existing gaps in Australia, and explores what needs to be done to address this situation. It then draws on international experience to examine how anti-poverty policy has evolved, focusing on the role of poverty targets in producing better data and promoting debate between policy makers, researchers and community sector practitioners about developing better measures. Australia lags behind these developments: a new approach is needed that engages researchers, policy makers, and other key stakeholders in positive dialogue aimed at setting a new framework for poverty measurement and an achievable anti-poverty policy agenda. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Census-based deprivation indices have been widely used in Aotearoa/New Zealand, Canada and UK to measure area-based socio-economic inequalities. This paper examines the indicators used in census-based area deprivation indices using a political ecology approach. We question whether the current indicators of deprivation derived from census data are meaningful for the all age groups and minority groups in the population, with a particular focus on deprivation indicators used in New Zealand, Canada and the United Kingdom. We comparatively reviewed methodological papers and reports that describe the indicators of deprivation in Aotearoa/New Zealand, Canada and the UK from 1975 to 2014. We consider the relationship between the notion of standards of living and measurements of deprivation and explore how hegemonic cultural constructs are implicit in measures of deprivation that privilege a Eurocentric, ageist and gender normative construction of statistics. We argue for more political ecological analyses to studying the relationship between social inequalities, geographies, health inequities and political economy to transform structures of oppression and inequality. This requires turning the analytical gaze on the wealthy and privileged instead of defaulting into deficit models to account for inequality. Studies of deprivation and inequality would benefit from understanding the processes and operations of power in the (re)production of socio-economic and health inequities to inform holistic strategies for social justice. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: To examine the perinatal outcomes of women who experience social disadvantage using population‐based perinatal data collected between 1999 and 2016. Design: Population‐based, retrospective cohort study. Setting: Victoria, Australia. Population or Sample: A total of 1 188 872 singleton births were included. Methods: Cohort study using routinely collected perinatal data. Multiple logistic regression was performed to determine associations between social disadvantage and adverse maternal and neonatal outcomes with confidence limits set at 99%. Time‐trend analysis for perinatal outcomes was performed in relation to area‐level disadvantage measures. Main Outcome Measures: Incidence of maternal admission to intensive care unit (ICU), postpartum haemorrhage (PPH) and caesarean section, perinatal mortality, preterm birth, low birthweight (LBW), and admission to special care nursery/neonatal intensive care unit (SCN/NICU). Results: Social disadvantage was associated with higher odds of adverse perinatal outcomes. Disadvantaged women were more likely to be admitted to ICU, have a PPH or experience perinatal mortality (stillbirth or neonatal death) and their neonates were more likely to be admitted to SCN/NICU, be born preterm and be LBW. A persistent social gradient existed across time for the most disadvantaged women for all outcomes except caesarean section. Conclusions: Social disadvantage has a marked negative impact on perinatal outcomes. This aligns with national and international evidence regarding the impact of disadvantage. Strategies that improve access to, and reduce fragmentation in, maternity care in addition to initiatives that address the social determinants of health may contribute to improving perinatal outcomes for socially disadvantaged women. This article includes Author Insights, a video abstract available at: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1oZ1ZrWmd1fZuifYZ6zdkq7tYHOE8pyjC/view?usp=sharing. Linked article: This article is commented on by David Ellwood, pp. 1394 in this issue. To view this mini commentary visit https://doi.org/10.1111/1471‐0528.17526. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]