A call for action that cannot go to voicemail: Research activism to urgently improve Indigenous perinatal health and wellbeing.

In this call to action, a coalition of Indigenous and non-Indigenous researchers from Australia, Aotearoa New Zealand, United States and Canada argue for the urgent need for adequately funded Indigenous-led solutions to perinatal health inequities for Indigenous families in well-resourced settler-colonial countries. Authors describe examples of successful community-driven programs making a difference and call on all peoples to support and resource Indigenous-led perinatal health services by providing practical actions for individuals and different groups.

The first comprehensive report on Indigenous Australian women's inequalities in cervical screening: A retrospective registry cohort study in Queensland, Australia (2000-2011).

BACKGROUND: The Australian National Cervical Screening Program, introduced more than 20 years ago, does not record the Indigenous status of screening participants. This article reports the first population-based estimates of participation in cervical screening for Indigenous and non-Indigenous Australian women. METHODS: This was a retrospective, population-based study of 1,334,795 female Queensland residents, aged 20 to 69 years, who participated in cervical screening from 2000 to 2011; 26,829 were identified as Indigenous through linkage to hospitalization records. Participation rates were calculated as the number of women screened divided by the average estimated resident population, with adjustments made for hysterectomies, for each 2-, 3-, and 5-year screening period. Multivariate logistic regression was used to estimate odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs), which were adjusted for age group, place of residence, and socioeconomic disadvantage. RESULTS: In 2010-2011, the 2-year participation rate was 55.7% (95% CI, 55.6%-55.9%) for non-Indigenous women and 33.5% (95% CI, 32.9%-34.1%) for Indigenous women; this represented a decrease from 2000-2001 (57.7% [95% CI, 57.6%-57.9%] and 35.3% [95% CI, 34.5%-36.1%], respectively). The difference between Indigenous and non-Indigenous women was greatest for those aged 45 to 49 years. The 3- and 5-year participation rates were higher within both groups, and the absolute differences between the 2 groups were larger. Significant interactions between the Indigenous status and the place of residence and socioeconomic disadvantage highlight that the Indigenous/non-Indigenous differential was evident in all places of residence except for very remote areas (OR, 0.99; 95% CI, 0.95-1.02) and was greatest in the most affluent areas (OR, 0.26; 95% CI, 0.24-0.27). CONCLUSIONS: Indigenous Australian women participate less than non-Indigenous women, and this gap has not closed. These results provide important benchmarks for the new Australian cervical screening program commencing in 2017, which will provide opportunities to reduce inequities for Indigenous women and address longstanding data deficiencies in the collection of the Indigenous status. Cancer 2016;122:1560-9. © 2016 The Authors. Cancer published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc. on behalf of American Cancer Society.

International variations in childhood cancer in indigenous populations: a systematic review.

Although the cancer burden in indigenous children has been reported in some countries, up to now, no international comparison has been made. We therefore aimed to assess the available evidence of the burden of childhood cancer in indigenous populations. We did a systematic review of reports on cancer incidence, mortality, and survival in indigenous children worldwide. Our findings highlight the paucity of accessible information and advocate the pressing need for data by indigenous status in countries where population-based cancer registries are established. The true extent of disparities between the burden in the indigenous community needs to be measured so that targeted programmes for cancer control can be planned and implemented.

The burden of stomach cancer in indigenous populations: a systematic review and global assessment.

OBJECTIVE: Stomach cancer is a leading cause of cancer death, especially in developing countries. Incidence has been associated with poverty and is also reported to disproportionately affect indigenous peoples, many of whom live in poor socioeconomic circumstances and experience lower standards of health. In this comprehensive assessment, we explore the burden of stomach cancer among indigenous peoples globally. DESIGN: The literature was searched systematically for studies on stomach cancer incidence, mortality and survival in indigenous populations, including Indigenous Australians, Maori in New Zealand, indigenous peoples from the circumpolar region, native Americans and Alaska natives in the USA, and the Mapuche peoples in Chile. Data from the New Zealand Health Information Service and the Surveillance Epidemiology and End Results (SEER) Program were used to estimate trends in incidence. RESULTS: Elevated rates of stomach cancer incidence and mortality were found in almost all indigenous peoples relative to corresponding non-indigenous populations in the same regions or countries. This was particularly evident among Inuit residing in the circumpolar region (standardised incidence ratios (SIR) males: 3.9, females: 3.6) and in Maori (SIR males: 2.2, females: 3.2). Increasing trends in incidence were found for some groups. CONCLUSIONS: We found a higher burden of stomach cancer in indigenous populations globally, and rising incidence in some indigenous groups, in stark contrast to the decreasing global trends. This is of major public health concern requiring close surveillance and further research of potential risk factors. Given evidence that improving nutrition and housing sanitation, and Helicobacter pylori eradication programmes could reduce stomach cancer rates, policies which address these initiatives could reduce inequalities in stomach cancer burden for indigenous peoples.

Participatory public health systems research: value of community involvement in a study series in mental health emergency preparedness.

BACKGROUND: Concerns have arisen over recent years about the absence of empirically derived evidence on which to base policy and practice in the public health system, in general, and to meet the challenge of public health emergency preparedness, in particular. Related issues include the challenge of disaster-caused, behavioral health surge, and the frequent exclusion of populations from studies that the research is meant to aid. OBJECTIVE: To characterize the contributions of nonacademic collaborators to a series of projects validating a set of interventions to enhance capacity and competency of public mental health preparedness planning and response. SETTING(S): Urban, suburban, and rural communities of the state of Maryland and rural communities of the state of Iowa. PARTICIPANTS: Study partners and participants (both of this project and the studies examined) were representatives of academic health centers (AHCs), local health departments (LHDs), and faith-based organizations (FBOs) and their communities. PROCEDURES: A multiple-project, case study analysis was conducted, that is, four research projects implemented by the authors from 2005 through 2011 to determine the types and impact of contributions made by nonacademic collaborators to those projects. The analysis involved reviewing research records, conceptualizing contributions (and providing examples) for government, faith, and (nonacademic) institutional collaborators. RESULTS: Ten areas were identified where partners made valuable contributions to the study series; these "value-areas" were as follows: 1) leadership and management of the projects; 2) formulation and refinement of research topics, aims, etc; 3) recruitment and retention of participants; 4) design and enhancement of interventions; 5) delivery of interventions; 6) collection, analysis, and interpretation of data; 7) dissemination of findings; 8) ensuring sustainability of faith/government preparedness planning relationships; 9) optimizing scalability and portability of the model; and 10) facilitating translational impact of study findings. CONCLUSIONS: Systems-based partnerships among academic, faith, and government entities offer an especially promising infrastructure for conducting participatory public health systems research in domestic emergency preparedness and response.

Assessment of appropriate medication administration for hospitalized patients with Parkinson's disease.

BACKGROUND: For Parkinson's disease (PD) patients, adherence to a regular PD medication schedule is important in achieving optimal symptom control. There are few published studies quantifying PD medication administrations in hospitalized PD patients. METHODS: Hospitalization records for 100 veterans with idiopathic PD and admitted to our center were reviewed to determine the on time rate and contraindicated medication doses. A barcode based computerized medication administration system within the electronic medical record provided information of the exact time the medication was given to a patient. RESULTS: Eighty-nine idiopathic PD patients met study inclusion criteria. Among them, 87 were on levodopa monotherapy or in combination with other PD medications. Two patients were on dopamine agonists only. A total of 3873 doses of PD medications were prescribed during hospitalization. Among 675 incorrect medication administrations, 322 doses were omitted, 300 doses late by ≥ 30 min, and 53 doses given early by ≥ 30 min. Contraindicated medications were prescribed for 19 patients. The correct administration percentage was lower during the first 2 days post-admission compared to subsequent days (mean 74.6% vs. 82.8%) and higher for patients who had neurological consultations (mean 85.5% vs. 76.5%). Correct administration rates were better for patient-based medication schedules (85.6%) than with hospital-based schedules (77.5%), but did not achieve statistical significance. CONCLUSION: Adherence to regular PD medication dosing schedules during hospitalization is problematic, but improves with specialist consultation. Staff involved in the admission process for PD patients should work to safeguard against disruption of the prescribed home dosing schedule.