Article

Indigenous well-being in four countries: An application of the UNDP'S Human Development Index to Indigenous Peoples in Australia, Canada, New Zealand, and the United States

Department of Sociology, University of Waterloo, 200 University Drive W, Waterloo, Ontario, Canada.
BMC International Health and Human Rights (Impact Factor: 1.44). 02/2007; 7:9. DOI: 10.1186/1472-698X-7-9
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT Canada, the United States, Australia, and New Zealand consistently place near the top of the United Nations Development Programme's Human Development Index (HDI) rankings, yet all have minority Indigenous populations with much poorer health and social conditions than non-Indigenous peoples. It is unclear just how the socioeconomic and health status of Indigenous peoples in these countries has changed in recent decades, and it remains generally unknown whether the overall conditions of Indigenous peoples are improving and whether the gaps between Indigenous peoples and other citizens have indeed narrowed. There is unsettling evidence that they may not have. It was the purpose of this study to determine how these gaps have narrowed or widened during the decade 1990 to 2000.
Census data and life expectancy estimates from government sources were used to adapt the Human Development Index (HDI) to examine how the broad social, economic, and health status of Indigenous populations in these countries have changed since 1990. Three indices - life expectancy, educational attainment, and income - were combined into a single HDI measure.
Between 1990 and 2000, the HDI scores of Indigenous peoples in North America and New Zealand improved at a faster rate than the general populations, closing the gap in human development. In Australia, the HDI scores of Indigenous peoples decreased while the general populations improved, widening the gap in human development. While these countries are considered to have high human development according to the UNDP, the Indigenous populations that reside within them have only medium levels of human development.
The inconsistent progress in the health and well-being of Indigenous populations over time, and relative to non-Indigenous populations, points to the need for further efforts to improve the social, economic, and physical health of Indigenous peoples.

Download full-text

Full-text

Available from: Eric Guimond, Jul 01, 2015
1 Follower
 · 
261 Views
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: To compare the incidence of first heart failure (HF) hospitalisation, antecedent risk factors and 1-year mortality between Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal populations in Western Australia (2000-2009). A population-based cohort aged 20-84years comprising Aboriginal (n=1013; mean 54±14years) and non-Aboriginal patients (n=16,366; mean 71±11years) with first HF hospitalisation was evaluated. Age and sex-specific incidence rates and HF antecedents were compared between subpopulations. Regression models were used to examine 30-day and 1-year (in 30-day survivors) mortality. Aboriginal patients were younger, more likely to reside in rural/remote areas (76% vs 23%) and to be women (50.6% vs 41.7%, all p<0.001). Aboriginal (versus non-Aboriginal) HF incidence rates were 11-fold higher in men and 23-fold in women aged 20-39years, declining to about 2-fold in patients aged 70-84years. Ischaemic and rheumatic heart diseases were more common antecedents of HF in younger (<55years) Aboriginal versus non-Aboriginal patients (p<0.001). Hypertension, diabetes, chronic kidney disease, renal failure, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, and a high Charlson comorbidity index (>=3) were also more prevalent in younger and older Aboriginal patients (p<0.001). Although 30-day mortality was similar in both subpopulations, Aboriginal patients aged <55years had a 1.9 risk-adjusted hazard ratio (HR) for 1-year mortality (p=0.015). Aboriginal people had substantially higher age and sex-specific HF incidence rate and prevalence of HF antecedents than their non-Aboriginal counterparts. HR for 1-year mortality was also significantly worse at younger ages, highlighting the urgent need for enhanced primary and secondary prevention of HF in this population.
    International journal of cardiology 02/2014; 173(1). DOI:10.1016/j.ijcard.2014.02.020 · 6.18 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Indigenous Australians have been known to be disadvantaged in many ways although higher art and physical self-concepts have been reported with Indigenous samples. Given recent research demonstrating the reciprocal effects of achievement and self-concept in academic domains, Indigenous students may experience further disadvantages in both academic performance and self-concept. A sample of Indigenous and non-Indigenous students (N = 1,342) from schools in New South Wales (NSW), Australia were asked to respond to a survey measuring: five domains of self-concept (i.e., school, reading, mathematics, art, and physical abilities), two learning-related factors (enjoyment and participation), and a self-assessment of their school work. Their scores in a NSW state-wide assessment of students’ literacy and numeracy were also obtained. Confirmatory factor analysis established the self-concept and learning-related factors. Multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA) using a 2 (identity: Indigenous vs. Non-Indigenous) × 2 (region: urban vs. rural) design found significant effects of identity for all variables except for art self-concept. That is, non-Indigenous students scored higher than Indigenous students in literacy and numeracy tests, self-concepts, learning-related factors, and self-ratings of school work, irrespective of region. The results did not support previous research demonstrating a relatively higher art self-concept for Indigenous children based on stereotypical perspectives. These results imply that school personnel would be well advised to not assume stereotypic differences between Indigenous and non-Indigenous Australian students or assume a great difference between Indigenous students from urban and rural school settings. However, there seems to be a need for improving the school environment so as to promote Indigenous students’ performance and enjoyment of school life.
    School Psychology International 08/2013; 34(4):405-427. DOI:10.1177/0143034312446890 · 0.59 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: This paper is a review of current assessment frameworks, time series features and an analysis of the causes of Indigenous poverty and disadvantage. Current frameworks used to assess the chronic nature of Indigenous poverty and disadvantage are mainly descriptive in nature and inadequate in terms of considering Indigenous perspectives and concerns about well-being improvement. They are also backward looking and not indicative of causal structures. Existing national longitudinal data sets have either limited coverage or inadequate Indigenous sample sizes and cannot be used to make any meaningful multidimensional analysis of chronic Indigenous poverty and disadvantage. Explanations as to why disadvantage and poverty persist are fragmentary and often polarized, including either an Indigenous culture of dependency or government policy failures. The persistence of Indigenous disadvantage and poverty is evident when using even inadequate measures such as income. The persistence of poverty in spite of several efforts seems to indicate traps – different sets of complex feedback loops that create vicious circles and make escaping from poverty a non-linear affair. This paper suggests adapting and then adopting a broader inequality and poverty assessment framework such as a capability approach by Amatrya Sen. It also calls for research which would apply integrated systems approaches and modelling to explore the nature of poverty and inequality traps among Indigenous people and to provide comprehensive evidence base for effective solutions.