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.

1 Bookmark
 · 
161 Views
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Indigenous people globally remain resilient yet vulnerable to the threats of HIV. Although Australian Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples experience the worst health status of any identifiable group in Australia, with a standardized morbidity rate three times that of non-Indigenous Australians, the Australian response to HIV has resulted in relatively low and stable rates of HIV infection among Australia's Indigenous peoples. This paper examines the reasons for the success of HIV prevention efforts. These include early recognition by Indigenous peoples of the potential effect that HIV could have on their communities; the supply of health hardware (needle and syringe programs and condoms); the development and implementation of culturally-appropriate health promotion messages such as the internationally-recognized Condoman campaign; the inclusion of dedicated Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Sexual Health Workers in communities; and an inclusive policy and partnership approach. Furthermore, the efforts of peak Aboriginal health organizations including NACCHO and its member services and Indigenous programs in peak mainstream organizations like AFAO and its member organizations, have all contributed to prevention success. Efforts need to be maintained however to ensure an escalated epidemic does not occur, particularly among heterosexual people, especially women, and people who inject drugs. New ideas are required as we enter a new era of HIV prevention within the context of the new paradigm of treatment as prevention, and getting to zero new infections.
    AIDS education and prevention: official publication of the International Society for AIDS Education 06/2014; 26(3):267-79. · 1.51 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Australia, Canada, and New Zealand are all developed nations that are home to Indigenous populations which have historically faced poorer outcomes than their non-Indigenous counterparts on a range of health, social, and economic measures. The past several decades have seen major efforts made to close gaps in health and social determinants of health for Indigenous persons. We ask whether relative progress toward these goals has been achieved. We used census data for each country to compare outcomes for the cohort aged 25-29 years at each census year 1981-2006 in the domains of education, employment, and income. The percentage-point gaps between Indigenous and non-Indigenous persons holding a bachelor degree or higher qualification ranged from 6.6% (New Zealand) to 10.9% (Canada) in 1981, and grew wider over the period to range from 19.5% (New Zealand) to 25.2% (Australia) in 2006. The unemployment rate gap ranged from 5.4% (Canada) to 16.9% (Australia) in 1981, and fluctuated over the period to range from 6.6% (Canada) to 11.0% (Australia) in 2006. Median Indigenous income as a proportion of non-Indigenous median income (whereby parity = 100%) ranged from 77.2% (New Zealand) to 45.2% (Australia) in 1981, and improved slightly over the period to range from 80.9% (Canada) to 54.4% (Australia) in 2006. Australia, Canada, and New Zealand represent nations with some of the highest levels of human development in the world. Relative to their non-Indigenous populations, their Indigenous populations were almost as disadvantaged in 2006 as they were in 1981 in the employment and income domains, and more disadvantaged in the education domain. New approaches for closing gaps in social determinants of health are required if progress on achieving equity is to improve.
    BMC Public Health 02/2014; 14(1):201. · 2.08 Impact Factor
  • [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; · 6.18 Impact Factor

Full-text (2 Sources)

View
30 Downloads
Available from
May 21, 2014