Search

Background: Policies and strategies addressing the health inequities experienced by First Nations peoples are critical to ensuring the gap in outcomes between First Nations and non‐Indigenous peoples is closed. The identification of First Nations peoples is vital to enable the delivery of culturally safe and sensitive health care. Complete and accurate health data are essential for funding and evaluation of such initiatives. Aims: To describe the processes used and accuracy of identification and documentation of First Nations mothers and babies during the period of the implementation of a culturally responsive caseload model of maternity care at three major metropolitan maternity services in Melbourne, Australia. Materials and methods: A cross‐sectional study was conducted using administrative and clinical data. Results: There was variation in when and how First Nations identification was asked and documented for mothers and babies. Errors included 14% of First Nations mothers not identified at the first booking appointment, 5% not identified until after the birth and 11% of First Nations babies not identified in the Victorian Perinatal Data Collection documentation. Changes to documentation and staff education were implemented to improve identification and reduce inaccuracies. Conclusions: To improve disparities in health outcomes, mainstream health services must respond to the needs of First Nations peoples, but improved care first requires accurate identification and documentation of First Nations peoples. Implementing and maintaining accuracy in collection and documentation of First Nations status is essential for health services to provide timely and appropriate care to First Nations people and to support and grow culturally appropriate and safe services. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: The 'Ringing Up about Breastfeeding earlY' (RUBY) randomised controlled trial showed increased breastfeeding at 6 months in participants who received the proactive telephone-based peer support breastfeeding intervention compared with participants allocated to receive standard care and supports. The present study aimed to evaluate if the intervention was cost-effective., Design: A within-trial cost-effectiveness analysis., Setting: Three metropolitan maternity services in Melbourne, Victoria, Australia., Participants: First time mothers intending to breastfeed their infant (1152) and peer volunteers (246)., Intervention: The intervention comprised proactive telephone-based support from a peer volunteer from early postpartum up to 6 months. Participants were allocated to usual care (n=578) or the intervention (n=574)., Main Outcome Measures: Costs during a 6-month follow-up period including individual healthcare, breastfeeding support and intervention costs in all participants, and an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio., Results: Costs per mother supported were valued at $263.75 (or $90.33 excluding costs of donated volunteer time). There was no difference between the two arms in costs for infant and mothers in healthcare and breastfeeding support costs. These figures result in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $4146 ($1393 if volunteer time excluded) per additional mother breast feeding at 6 months., Conclusion: Considering the significant improvement in breastfeeding outcomes, this intervention is potentially cost-effective. These findings, along with the high value placed on the intervention by women and peer volunteers provides robust evidence to upscale the implementation of this intervention., Trial Registration Number: ACTRN12612001024831., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2023. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)